In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: Vencil, N.
120 A.3d 1028
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Nancy Vencil was involuntarily committed under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act after April 1–2, 2003 emergency-room encounters and a 302 application by a crisis worker (Mr. Diehl).
- The 302 paperwork noted Vencil had "had suicidal thoughts" and that she drove erratically after leaving the hospital; she was later examined by psychiatrists and discharged within 120 hours.
- Vencil filed a Section 6111.1(g)(2) petition to expunge the Pennsylvania State Police record of the 302 commitment, arguing the commitment lacked sufficient evidentiary basis.
- The trial court held a de novo hearing and denied expungement, applying the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard and finding Vencil had expressed a desire to kill herself and acted in furtherance by erratic driving.
- On appeal the Superior Court reviewed de novo whether the evidence met the MHPA’s "clear and present danger" threshold and whether the trial court correctly applied the standard of proof.
- The Superior Court reversed, concluding the record did not contain clear and convincing evidence of a contemporaneous threat of suicide or acts in furtherance of a threat, and ordered expungement under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Section 302 commitment was supported by evidence of a "clear and present danger" of self-harm | Vencil: her statements were past-tense, vague, and did not show an imminent threat or acts in furtherance; insufficient for commitment | Holy Spirit/PSP: crisis worker’s 302 application and psychiatrist’s evaluation showed suicidal ideation plus dangerous conduct (erratic driving), supporting commitment | Held: Not supported — record lacked clear and convincing evidence of a contemporaneous threat or acts in furtherance; commitment insufficient |
| Appropriate procedure for reviewing a Section 302 commitment under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.1(g)(2) | Vencil: (implicit) trial court should fully reexamine evidence | Holy Spirit/PSP: (argued) review limited to information available to 302 petitioner/examining physician | Held: De novo, full evidentiary hearing is required for § 6111.1(g)(2) sufficiency review |
| Standard of proof for de novo sufficiency review of a 302 commitment | Vencil: (relied on) clear-and-convincing required to protect liberty interests | Holy Spirit/PSP: trial court had used clear-and-convincing | Held: Clear and convincing evidence is the proper standard for the de novo sufficiency review |
| Whether erratic driving after leaving the hospital could constitute an act in furtherance of suicide threat | Vencil: driving was unrelated, isolated, idiosyncratic behavior | Holy Spirit/PSP: erratic driving showed dangerous conduct corroborating risk | Held: Driving alone, without linkage to a contemporaneous threat, was insufficient to show act in furtherance under the MHPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Smerconish v. Commonwealth, 112 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for expungement motions)
- Keyes v. Commonwealth, 83 A.3d 1016 (Pa. Super. 2013) (procedural discussion of expungement review)
- Meals v. Commonwealth, 912 A.2d 213 (Pa. 2006) (de novo review and sufficiency principles)
- In re T.B., 113 A.3d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2015) (statutory construction and review standards)
- In re T.J., 739 A.2d 478 (Pa. 1999) (trial court’s de novo review of MHPA determinations)
- In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. 1998) (clear-and-convincing standard for extended involuntary treatment review)
- In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89 (Pa. 2010) (definition and requirements of clear-and-convincing evidence)
- In re Nicolazzo’s Estate, 199 A.2d 455 (Pa. 1964) (appellate review when standard-of-proof issues present)
- In re R.F., 914 A.2d 907 (Pa. Super. 2006) (example of sufficient facts for 302 commitment)