In Re: M.B., Appeal of: PA State Police
228 A.3d 555
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background
- In Sept. 2003 M.B. was taken to Millcreek Community Hospital after suicidal conduct; hospital filed a §302 emergency commitment and a §303 certification was docketed in Erie County on 9/25/2003.
- M.B. says he was not given required §302/§303 procedural forms or counsel and was released within ~5 days; he only learned of the commitment years later when denied a gun purchase.
- In June 2016 M.B. petitioned to vacate/expunge his involuntary commitment records and to restore his firearm rights under 18 Pa.C.S. §6111.1(g) and §6105(f).
- At an October 2016 hearing PSP introduced a §303 certification; the trial court admitted it but later concluded the §303 certification did not pertain to M.B. (or was ‘‘entirely invalid’’) and ordered expungement of the §302 record and restoration of firearm rights.
- PSP appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate a §303 certification and that the court applied the wrong burden/standard for reviewing a §302 expunction petition. The Superior Court vacated parts of the order and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (M.B.) | Defendant's Argument (PSP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Could the Clearfield trial court interpret/admit the Erie §303 certification and determine it did not pertain to M.B.? | The certification did not comply with procedures and did not pertain to him. | Trial court had authority as factfinder to resolve relevance and admissibility. | Trial court had authority to admit and interpret the §303 document as evidence and to make factual findings about whether it pertained to M.B. (court acts as factfinder). |
| 2. Was the trial court’s factual finding that the §303 certification did not pertain to M.B. against the weight of the evidence? | M.B. urged doubts about spelling, procedures, and lack of hearing/counsel. | PSP argued the §303 form matched M.B.’s age, dates, symptoms and facility — showing it pertained to him. | Superior Court held the trial court abused its discretion: the weight of the evidence supported that the §303 certification likely pertained to M.B.; vacated that portion and remanded. |
| 3. Could the trial court declare the §303 certification ‘‘entirely invalid’’ and expunge §303 matters under §6111.1(g)? | M.B. relied on trial-court finding of invalid §303 to support expungement. | PSP argued §6111.1(g) does not authorize review/expunction of §303 commitments and that §303 MHRO certifications are final adjudications subject to a 30‑day review window. | Court held the trial court erred to the extent it purported to invalidate a §303 certification under §6111.1(g); §6111.1(g) authorizes review/expunction only of §302 commitments and §303 certifications must be challenged within statutorily prescribed procedures/time. |
| 4. Did the trial court apply the correct standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence supporting the §302 commitment? | M.B. argued procedural defects justified expungement under the standard the trial court applied. | PSP argued the court wrongly required clear and convincing proof; after Vencil the correct standard is preponderance limited to information available to the physician. | Court held the trial court applied the wrong standard (used clear and convincing); under In re Vencil the §302 sufficiency review uses the preponderance standard as described by the Supreme Court; vacated the §302 expungement portion and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.M.Y., 218 A.3d 404 (Pa. 2019) (mental health review officer §303 certification is a final adjudication and must be appealed within statutorily prescribed period)
- In re Jacobs, 15 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2011) (§6111.1(g) authorizes court review only of §302 commitments; §303 commitments are not reviewable under §6111.1(g))
- In re Vencil, 152 A.3d 235 (Pa. 2017) (trial court review of §302 sufficiency is under preponderance standard, considering only information available to the committing physician)
- In re K.L.S., 934 A.2d 1244 (Pa. 2007) (mental health review officer functions as law-trained quasi-judicial officer; certification is a final agency adjudication)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997) (standards for preserving and reviewing weight-of-the-evidence claims)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claims is limited to abuse-of-discretion review)
- In re F.C., III, 966 A.2d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Section 302 short-term emergency commitment procedure is constitutionally sound)
- Wolfe v. Beal, 384 A.2d 1187 (Pa. 1978) (damages/record destruction may follow unlawful commitment; does not create independent jurisdictional route to attack §303 certifications)