Commonwealth v. Smerconish
112 A.3d 1260
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Appellant Smerconish petitioned to expunge mental health records of a 302 involuntary commitment under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.1(g)(2) while his firearms rights restoration under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1) was granted.
- Trial court granted restoration of firearms but denied expungement because § 6105(f)(1) does not authorize expungement and the records could be expunged only under § 6111.1(g)(2).
- The court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence for the 302 commitment, finding it supported by the commitment documents admitted at hearing.
- Appellant was admitted to Lewistown Hospital on a 302 commitment after threats to commit suicide; emails to his sister about dying; a significant weight gain; and a very low Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 30.
- Dr. Bruce Eimer argued hearsay and due process concerns, but the court found his arguments unpersuasive and held the 302 evidence sufficient; discharge within 72 hours did not negate sufficiency.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding that § 6105(f)(1) does not authorize expungement and that § 6111.1(g)(2) controls expunction, with no abuse of discretion in denying expungement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expungement of 302 records was properly denied | Smerconish argues insufficiency to support expunction | Commonwealth contends sufficient evidence supports commitment | No abuse; denial affirmed |
| Whether Keyes governs expungement correctly or dicta | Keyes requirements are controlling, not dicta | Keyes is properly applied | No abuse; Keyes relied upon and not dicta |
| Whether hearsay/hearsay-on-hearsay was improperly admitted | Admission of hearsay was improper | Testimony admissible to explain police conduct and basis for warrant | Harmless error; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Keyes, 83 A.3d 1016 (Pa. Super. 2013) (expunction standards under 6111.1(g)(2) and relation to 6105(f)(1))
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652 (Pa. Super. 2013) (statutory construction; avoid surplusage; 6105 vs 6111.1(g))
- Commonwealth v. Velez, 51 A.3d 260 (Pa. Super. 2012) (statutory interpretation guidance on expunction provisions)
- In re J.M., 556 Pa. 63, 726 A.2d 1041 (1999) (sufficiency to support 302 warrant; hearsay may suffice in emergency, short-duration context)
- In re R.D., 739 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 1999) (limits of hearsay under 302 commitment; due process context)
- Commonwealth v. Jackson, 62 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for 302 warrant sufficiency; emergency basis; hearsay allowed)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 489 Pa. 559, 414 A.2d 1032 (1980) (police communications as non-hearsay to explain conduct)