Religious Discrimination and Defamation

[Marcel Mase]

Jurisdiction

Maryland

I was committed to a state hospital for a competency evaluation, though in the process I was discriminated against on account of my religious beliefs and given an improper diagnosis. While at the hospital I spoke to the doctors about my special religious belief that I believe I am a prophet and that I wish to write a holy scripture. The doctors said I suffer from grandiose delusions for this and the hospital proceeded to force me to take antipsychotic medications. My religious beliefs were the sole basis for the diagnosis and I have testimony from the doctor stating this fact. Then there was a court hearing where the doctor made the false statement to the judge claiming that I am mentally ill solely because they found my religious beliefs to be delusional. Can the false statement of the doctor be considered defamatory since it was made in a courtroom to a judge?

 

[Zigner]

Please continue to take any medications that are prescribed and also let your doctor know that your delusional thoughts are still present. Lying to the doctor to get out of treatment only does a disservice to you.

 

[adjusterjack]

Can the false statement of the doctor be considered defamatory since it was made in a courtroom to a judge?

No.

 

[zddoodah]

I was discriminated against on account of my religious beliefs

How so?

and given an improper diagnosis.

Which was what?

my special religious belief that I believe I am a prophet

For whom/what?

I wish to write a holy scripture.

Is someone seeking to prevent you from doing this?

The doctors said I suffer from grandiose delusions for this and the hospital proceeded to force me to take antipsychotic medications. My religious beliefs were the sole basis for the diagnosis

Seems appropriate.

Then there was a court hearing where the doctor made the false statement to the judge claiming that I am mentally ill solely because they found my religious beliefs to be delusional. Can the false statement of the doctor be considered defamatory since it was made in a courtroom to a judge?

Nope. For starters, a doctor's diagnosis of a mental illness is a statement of opinion. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Additionally, statements made in the context of legal proceedings are generally privileged against defamation claims.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Can the false statement of the doctor be considered defamatory since it was made in a courtroom to a judge?

Statements of opinion, like the opinion of a mental health professional about the condition of a patient, are not defamatory.

I get a sense that there is something more to this than you are revealing. Simply claiming to be a prophet and wanting to write texts on your own religious beliefs would not land you in state hospital for a mental health evaluation. There had to be something more involved, something that potentially may adversely affect others.

 

[army judge]

MARCEL EMIL MASE v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Marcel Mase, appellant, was charged, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, with three counts of burglary, with one count of second-degree assault, one count of concealment of a dangerous weapon, two counts of violating a protective order, one count of malicious destruction of property, and one count of resisting arrest. The court subsequently found Mase incompetent to stand trial and ordered that he be committed to the Maryland Department of Health ("Department"). Mase thereafter noted the instant appeal.


Leagle.com
HOME FEATURED LAWYERS FEATURED DECISIONS LATEST DECISIONS BROWSE DECISIONS ADVANCED SEARCH
Leagle.com Leagle.com Leagle.com
Home Browse Decisions MASE v. STATE

MASE v. STATE
Email | Print | Comments (0)
No. 661, September Term, 2022.
View Case Cited Cases
MARCEL EMIL MASE, v. STATE OF MARYLAND.

Appellate Court of Maryland.

Filed: January 5, 2023.

UNREPORTED
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.

Opinion by RIPKEN, J.

Marcel Mase, appellant, was charged, in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, with three counts of burglary, with one count of second-degree assault, one count of concealment of a dangerous weapon, two counts of violating a protective order, one count of malicious destruction of property, and one count of resisting arrest. The court subsequently found Mase incompetent to stand trial and ordered that he be committed to the Maryland Department of Health ("Department"). Mase thereafter noted the instant appeal.

In this appeal, Mase, acting pro se, has filed an informal brief in which he asks this Court to review the circuit court's commitment order, along with two additional orders: an "order to deny bail given on March 1, 2022," and an "order to deny Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus given on July 15, 2022 — C-10-CV-22-349." The State has moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that none of the challenged decisions are appealable. For reasons to follow, we agree with the State and hold that Mase's appeal should be dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2022, a statement of charges was filed against Mase in the District Court of Maryland for Frederick County. On February 28, 2022, Mase appeared in the District Court for a bail review hearing. Following that hearing, the District Court ordered Mase be held without bond.

On March 14, 2022, a criminal indictment was filed in the circuit court, and Mase's case was transferred to that court and docketed as Case No. C-10-CR-22-000110. The following month, defense counsel filed a request to have Mase examined for competency. The court granted the request and ordered the Department to evaluate Mase's competency to stand trial. That examination was completed, and a competency hearing was held on May 19, 2022. At the conclusion of that hearing, the court found that Mase was incompetent to stand trial and was a danger to himself and/or the community. The court ordered that Mase be committed to the Department pending further review by the court. On June 2, 2022, Mase noted the instant appeal.

On June 13, 2022, Mase initiated a new action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the circuit court. That filing was accepted by the court and docketed under a new case number: Case No. C-10-CV-22-00039. On June 15, 2022, the court denied Mase's petition. Mase thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration, and that motion was denied on August 3, 2022. Mase did not note an appeal from either the denial of the petition or the denial of the motion for reconsideration of that decision.

DISCUSSION
As noted, Mase filed the instant appeal in Case No. C-10-CR-22-000110 following the entry of the circuit court's commitment order. Mase filed an informal brief asking this Court to review the merits of three decisions: the District Court's decision denying bail; the circuit court's decision finding him incompetent to stand trial; and the circuit court's decision denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Case No. C-10-CV-22-00039. As we shall discuss, none of those decisions have been properly appealed to this Court. We hold, therefore, that Mase's appeal must be dismissed.

I. MASE'S CHALLENGE TO THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF BAIL WAS NEITHER FILED WITH THE CORRECT COURT FOR TIMELY FILED.
We have no authority to review the District Court's order denying bail. First, this Court has no jurisdiction over an interlocutory order entered in the District Court. This Court's jurisdiction arises from section 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article ("CJP") of the Maryland Code, which states that "a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case by a circuit court." (emphasis added). Where the judgment being challenged is entered in the District Court, any appeal from that judgment must be noted in the District Court and must be brought by way of a de novo appeal in the circuit court. See Oku v. State, 433 Md. 582, 589-93 (2013); see also Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-401. In this case, Mase was denied bail by the District Court. Mase's appeal regarding bail could thus only have been brought to the circuit court.

Additionally, the statutory scheme authorizing an appeal of a District Court judgment in a criminal case requires that the appeal be noted "within 30 days from the date of the final judgment from which appealed." Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 12-401(e)(1). Mase did not note an appeal within 30 days from the date the order was entered. The District Court's order denying bail was issued on March 1, but Mase did not file this appeal until June 2.

II. THE CIRCUIT COURT'S COMMITMENT ORDER IS NOT A FINAL JUDGMENT AND DOES NOT SATISFY THE COLLATERAL ORDER DOCTRINE.
Mase argues that the court erred in finding him incompetent to stand trial and ordering his commitment to the Department. As we shall explain, we may not review the court's order because it is neither a final judgment nor appealable via the collateral order doctrine.

As noted, this Court's jurisdiction "generally arises only after entry of a final judgment." Abe v. State, 217 Md.App. 174, 178 (2014). "In criminal cases, `no final judgment exists until after conviction and sentence has been determined[.]'" Abe, 217 Md. App. at 178 (quoting Harris v. State, 420 Md. 300, 312 (2011)). "The corollary to this general rule is that, ordinarily, interlocutory orders are not appealable." Bartenfelder v. Bartenfelder, 248 Md.App. 213, 230 (2020), cert. denied 472 Md. 5. However, an interlocutory order may be appealed in very limited circumstances: where the interlocutory order falls within one of the exceptions enumerated in CJP section 12-303; where the interlocutory order falls within the collateral order doctrine; or where the circuit court issues an order directing entry of a final judgment pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-602. Id.

The circuit court's commitment order is clearly not a final judgment, as Mase has yet to be tried, let alone convicted and sentenced. The order does not constitute one of the appealable interlocutory orders enumerated in CJP section 12-303, nor was it entered pursuant to Rule 2-602. Thus, for the court's commitment order to be appealable, it would have to fall within the collateral order doctrine. "To qualify as a collateral order, a ruling must satisfy four criteria: (1) it must conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) it must resolve an important issue; (3) it must be completely separate from the merits of the action; and (4) it must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." McLaughlin v. Ward, 240 Md.App. 76, 88 (2019) (citations and quotations omitted).

The circuit court's commitment order does not satisfy the first and last prong. Section 3-101, et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Article ("CP") of the Maryland Code governs incompetency and criminal responsibility in criminal cases. Pursuant to that statutory scheme, if a court finds that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial and, because of a mental disorder, is a danger to himself or another person, the court is required to order the defendant committed to the Department until such time that the court finds that the defendant is no longer incompetent, no longer a danger to himself or another person, or not likely to become competent in the foreseeable future. Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 3-106(c). The statute requires the court to hold a review hearing at least once per year to determine whether the defendant should remain committed. Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 3-106(d). In addition, at any time before final judgment, the court, either on its own or upon motion from either party, may "review the status of the case" or "reconsider the question of whether the defendant is incompetent to stand trial." Md. Code, Crim. Proc. §§ 3-104(c) and 3-106(d)(2).

Based on the reviewability of the court's commitment order, we are convinced that the circuit court's competency determination in the instant case was neither "conclusive" nor "effectively unreviewable." The statutory scheme provides a clear avenue for the court to review and reassess its decision. It would be improper, therefore, for this Court to review the court's decision on appeal. See Walker v. State, 392 Md. 1, 15-16 (2006) (holding that appellate review of the District Court's determination of competency was inappropriate "[w]here clear avenues for effective relief are available").

III. MASE'S CHALLENGE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT'S DENIAL OF HIS PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS WAS MADE TO THE WRONG CASE AND IS NOT AN APPEALABLE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER.
Mase argues that the court did not give due regard to the merits of his petition. However, as with the other two orders at issue here, the circuit court's denial of Mase's habeas petition is not properly before this Court. To begin with, Mase filed the instant appeal on June 2 with respect to Case No. C-10-CR-22-000110, in which Mase was committed to the Department and denied bail. Eleven days later, on June 13, Mase petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in a separate case, Case No. C-10-CV-22-00039. Because Mase's petition for habeas corpus was not an issue raised in the appealed case, Mase cannot use the instant appeal as a vehicle for challenging the denial of the habeas corpus. See Md. Rule 8-131 ("Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court").

Additionally, the denial of Mase's habeas petition is not an appealable order. There are only four instances in which an appeal may be taken from the denial of a habeas petition: (1) where the denial is part of an extradition case; (2) where the denial pertains to a claim regarding bail or excessive bail; (3) where a claim is made that the law under which the petitioner was convicted is unconstitutional; and (4) where the petitioner challenges the validity of confinement under the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act. Sabisch v. Moyer, 466 Md. 327, 351 (2019). None of those statutory exceptions applies here; therefore, the court's order is not appealable.1 See id. ("[A]n appeal may be taken from a final order in a habeas case only where specifically authorized by statute.").

In sum, none of the challenged orders is appropriately before this Court as an appealable judgment. As such, Mase's appeal must be dismissed.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY DISMISSED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

FootNotes

* At the November 8, 2022 general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland to the Appellate Court of Maryland. The name change took effect on December 14, 2022.
1. Although Mase seeks to challenge his right to bail in the instant appeal, it does not appear from the record that he raised a similar challenge in his petition for habeas corpus. Regardless, if such a challenge had been raised in his petition and he sought to appeal that order, Mase was required to file an application for leave to appeal within ten days after the denial was entered. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-707. No such application was filed.

 

[adjusterjack]

I get a sense that there is something more to this than you are revealing. Simply claiming to be a prophet and wanting to write texts on your own religious beliefs would not land you in state hospital for a mental health evaluation.

Perhaps this:

"The specific religious belief that was discriminated against was the fact that I do believe myself to be Jesus Christ"

Petition · Justice for Marcel Mase · Change.org

Anyway, this thread is a good example of why posters should not identify themselves by their real name.

 

[Marcel Mase]

How so?



Which was what?



For whom/what?



Is someone seeking to prevent you from doing this?



Seems appropriate.



Nope. For starters, a doctor's diagnosis of a mental illness is a statement of opinion. Defamation requires a false statement of fact. Additionally, statements made in the context of legal proceedings are generally privileged against defamation claims.

In my lawsuit I am claiming that I have been deprived of my civil rights and religiously discriminated against. I state that when the hospital exercised discretion in the sensitive matter of my religious beliefs and diagnosed me with mental illness solely on account of my religious beliefs then it was as if I was being told I am wrong for professing such a belief system and it was as if the doctors were attempting to alter my belief system through forcibly medicating me. And this was a clear violation of constitutional law, specifically Article Thirty Six of the Maryland Constitution which states
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice."

 

[Zigner]

In my lawsuit I am claiming that I have been deprived of my civil rights and religiously discriminated against. I state that when the hospital exercised discretion in the sensitive matter of my religious beliefs and diagnosed me with mental illness solely on account of my religious beliefs then it was as if I was being told I am wrong for professing such a belief system and it was as if the doctors were attempting to alter my belief system through forcibly medicating me. And this was a clear violation of constitutional law, specifically Article Thirty Six of the Maryland Constitution which states
"That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice."

The problem you have is not your religion or your belief in God, rather, it's the fact that you have a delusional belief that you ARE God.

 

[cbg]

A message board is not the proper place to be seeking help. Please contact a Maryland attorney who can review all the facts and documentation that are not available to us and which you should not post publicly.

 

[adjusterjack]

We have no way of commenting on whether your lawsuit has any chance of being successful. You understand that, right?

I also suggest you consult an attorney.

Meantime, your criminal case docket shows that on 5/16/23 MDH filed an evaluation report and a discharge summary.

Case Header Information (state.md.us)

You need to get copies of those documents from the court file so you can have them reviewed by an attorney.