*1 dоes not serve to cure the defect caused the total by exclu- did, sion. If it would be municipality able to freeze its it desired. development stage communities any Living least are at cannot things cease dynamic developing.2 However, because there is substantial evidence is for record Elocin’s site unsuitable residen- intensive tial I would remand the case Pleas development, Common for consideration of the reasonableness of that Elo- portion this provided cin’s for townhouses on site as Section plans of the Code. 1011(2) Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning 31, 1968, amended, P.L. as Act of P.S. July 11011(2). § A.2d 775 Pennsylvania, Appellant, v.
COMMONWEALTH BRACEY, Appellee. Elvita Pennsylvania. Supreme Court 18, 1982. Oct. Submitted 3, 1983. Decided June Upper Properties Dublin supra; e.g. Appeal, Dublin 54, See Girsh (1975). There A.2d 821 Twp., 21 Ct. Pa. Commonwealth support a conclusion nothing would record that in this is non-conforming cause addi- twin homes would presence of these township acreage open of this minimal on the of townhouses tion straw” which impact as the “final to be such an incremental have totally Township community. See character disturbs the 548, 449 A.2d Airy Lodge, Pa. Commonwealth Ct. v. Mt. Paradise carefully clearly articulated recognized and issue This court below. Judge writing the unanimous for MacPhail *3 B. Vanden- Dist. Sarah Henson, Atty., Deputy Eric B. for appellant. Dist. braak, Atty., Asst. appellee. for Scutti, Philadelphia, J.
Gilbert FLAHERTY, ROBERTS, C.J., NIX, LARSEN, Before jj. zappala, McDermott, hutchinson OPINION HUTCHINSON, Justice. voluntary manslaughter
A convicted appellee jury of her in connection with the death stabbing related charges 26, 1978. The Easter March Sunday, infant on daughter the conviction and her a new granted trial court vacated that her statements spontaneous trial on the ground were prompted by were not because police voluntary they from her schizo- paranoid internal resulting compulsion The di- appealed mental condition. phrenic to this Court.1 rectly the Fifth nor Fourteenth Amend-
We hold that neither nor our own consti- ments to the United States Constitution of statements made aby the suppression tution require custo- in the absencе of “involuntary” criminal defendant as equivalent. dial or its functional interrogation the statements made at trial as to testimony from the did not differ materially to the police, That hearing. testimony at the suppression testimony officers observed her police as Philadelphia follows: Several officers, street. When one of the naked down the running she screamed and attempted stop appellee, Officer Young, followed for approx- continued to run. The officers until she entered a house. four and one-half blocks imately the house and asked appellee why Branch entered Officer *4 to him two she was did not but told running. respond She her, “Me and He Bobby fighting. ladies with sitting appeal judgment jurisdiction has of this direct from the 1. This Court Code, 9, 1976, July 2 of the Judicial Act of sentence under section 586, 142, 722(1). Subsequent appellant’s to P.L. No. Pa.C.S. § Code, omitting legislature the Judicial conviction the amended provision appeals final orders of the for direct from all Court involving September Act of Pleas felonious homicide. Cоmmon appeal This P.L. No. effective November 1980. amendment, prior date of the which limits was taken to the effective jurisdiction appeal capital cases. our on direct to had a butcher knife. The baby got I way. tried to take it from him.” away Because appellee had what ap- peared to be blood on her hands forehead, and Officer Branch, accompanied Clark, Deborah one of the women in the present house, transported appellee the hospital. After arrived at the appellee hospital, Palma, Officer who did her, not know told Officer Branch that there were on Easter since “goofy people Sunday, some woman had just stabbed her and killed her”. daughter Appellee overheard this comment and to her dropped knees, became hysterical, began her hands on the floor banging and shouted: “Oh my God, it”, I her”, didn’t mean to do “He killed and “Don’t tell me is dead”. my baby Little did it.” The “Bobby officers to calm managed in a appellee placed hеr chair. After minutes, of several expiration appellee on Officer tugged “Officer, Troutner’s sleeve and stated: I didn’t mean to do I my wanted to kill him. I didn’t want baby. to kill my baby.”2
While escorted to the appellee being patrol wagon thereafter, she became and screamed: shortly hysterical “Nickie, Nickie, Nickie” and “I am I mean it didn’t sorry. Nickie.” then in the Officer back of Daly placed minutes into the ride from the patrol wagon. Several to the Police Administration be- Building, appellee hospital to chant a her feet. gan religious psalm stamp Appellee maintained her for chanting stamping approximately At in the Police Adminis- fifteen minutes. about 11:30A.M. back- tration Officer Kuhar obtain Building, attempted name, information such as address and ground appellee’s At refused to answer. Appellee number. Security Social to read the P.M., Kuhar attempted about 12:45 Officer have to said she did not Miranda She warnings appellee. if Palma asked him testified that Officer Branch Officer said, baby yes, “the Palma he said Officer was the mother and when “Oh, conversation, shouted Appellee, is dead.” who overheard accepted God, suppression court my do it.” The I didn’t mean to Pal- relied on Officer the trial court Branch’s version while Officer discrepancy not affect our result. See n. does ma’s version. infra. *5 her to read Kuhar asked them. Officer to answer hear or read them her answers. She record her rights want to remain 3, “Do you number wrote by question “yes” question appellee, Kuhar did not Officer Although silent.” stated: she spontaneously P.M., 4:00 and 4:30 1976,between of May,
Elvita died 30th beat I am Eve now. Bobby Lehigh. 25th and 24th or and became then left Bobby head. Elvita Elvita, her beat in Eve are together spirit. Elvita Nakia and Eve. Today today.3 in spirit Nakia put before the Ar- was taken appellee when
Subsequently, that she was guilty stated suddenly she Court raignment had a matron she also told her She baby. and had killed her baby. killed did not police that the concluded judge
The suppression finding sup- and that to interrogate attempt declined The suppression judge recоrd. ported by they statements ruling spontaneous the appellee’s suppress to any psycholog- not response volunteered and were Moreover, the sup- the police.4 coercion by ical or physical did not inter- the police that since concluded pression judge 436, 86 Arizona, 384 U.S. S.Ct. Miranda rogate appellee, officers to not require did 16 L.Ed.2d Amendment rights. Fifth and warn her of her Sixth at trial. were admitted statements spontaneous Appellee’s conviction, judge granted the trial However, following that her spontane- trial on the ground her motion for a new should have and therefore were involuntary ous statements on of Dr. testimony The trial relied judge suppressed. been at the suppres- who testified Cooke, a defense psychiatrist, sion that: hearing testify did not trial and the did not
3. Officer Kuhar A.M., Also, 11:35 in an at about that statement at trial. introduce friend, Marguerita attorney, appellee called a effort to contact an say a trance officers overheard her she Clark. Police Likеwise, attempt not did didn’t mean it. the Commonwealth introduce that statement at trial. fact, by any her statement was elicited does not contend conduct, police improper or otherwise. . . . . . confusion, mental status . was one of [Defendant’s] *6 delusions, hallucinations, and anxiety, anger, hostility, that could consistently she contradicto experience directly and so that she was so ry ideas confused that she feelings could not make a determination: This is what I logical do; want what I do not want to do. In the to this is confusion, all would process many of that statements which taken as would indicate the totality, emerge, .5 has kinds of she contradictory feelings The considered trial admitted to testimony trial also judge that evidence prove insanity, including appellee appellee’s her; to Nakia had (her Nakia had tried kill baby) believed Messiah; animal; the turned an was appellee appellee into heaven; good had Nakia and sent Nakia’s part baptized to send Nakia’s to heaven. part аnd she now wanted bad had a testimony The also considered trial court the killing for two years prior of mental illness history visual hallucina- auditory and that she had and experienced during period. tions delusions
I
the
under
confessions
examined
Miranda,
Prior to
Amend-
the Fifth and Fourteenth
Due Process Clause
The central con-
Constitution.
ments to the United States
other
of confession or
admissibility
in
cern
determining
be
was
may properly
an
whether they
accused
statements
elicited as
were not
they
insofar as
viewed as voluntary,
confessor’s will.
to overcome
likely
any pressure
result of
Accused, Trial
Cook,
Rights
J.
Constitutional
See
the United States
More. specifically,
(1974).
Rights §
voluntar-
cases considered
in its pre-Miranda
Court
Supreme
an individual
from
obtained
to statements
with respect
iness
that a
testified
judge
Dr. Cooke also
noted that
suppression
reasonably co-
“spontaneous”,
killing appellee was
month after
herent,
person. At
place and
as to time
oriented
relevant and
defense,
testified
insanity
Dr. Cоoke
trial,
support
appellee’s
right”
killed
“doing
she
when
was
she
that
daughter
believed
following
commands
thought
God’s
she was
she
since
making a sacrifice.
em-
custodial
The means
police interrogation.
subjected
to extract confessions were the traditional
ployed by police
Willman,
v.
focus of concern. See Commonwealth
(1969).
Pre-Miranda, whether a determining confession follow- custodial ing interrogation the courts also involuntary, considered the of the accused to coercive influ- susceptibility
364
enees
Commonwealth v. Hernan-
including
suspect’s age,
education,
dez,
405,
(1982);
498 Pa.
[t]he
examined,
and methods
duration
including:
ment must be
confinement;
man-
conditions of
interrogation;
defendant;
toward the
de-
ifest
of the police
attitudes
condition; and any
and psychological
fendant’s physical
drain the defendant’s
may
power
other condition which
to undermine his ability
or
suggestion
resistance
Connecticut, 367
v.
U.S.
exercise free will.
Culombe
See
Commonwealth
(1961);
6 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
Pa.
L.Ed.2d
*8
encom-
doctrine
voluntariness
However, the pre-Miranda
to exert
likely
which are
“interrogation practices
only
passed
him from
to disable
as
an individual
upon
such pressure
Arizona, 384
Miranda v.
choice.”
and rational
a free
making
v. Hogan,
1622-23,
Malloy
464-65,
(citing
at
at
86 S.Ct.
U.S.
(1964)) (emphasis
1489,
365 is whether the accused’s will overcome overbearing by questioning. Commonwealth v. Hernan- improper See dez, 405, 498 446 (1982); Pa. A.2d 1268 v. Holton, 11, Pa. 247 A.2d 228
Our interest
in the individual’s
to make a
ability
rational choice in
the
of a
voluntariness
confes
determining
sion for constitutional
is “our
purposes
conviction
strong
that our
of law enforcement should not
so
system
as
operate
to take
of a
in a
advantage
person”
condition,
weakened
whether
is a
it
or mental condition.
physical
Common
171, 179,
wealth ex rel Gaito v.
Maroney,
A.2d
(Roberts,
632 (1966)
J.)
Alabama,
Blackburn v.
(quoting
Gault,
at
280).
U.S.
S.Ct. at
See also In re
1428,18
U.S. 87
L.Ed.2d 527 (1967).
S.Ct.
In that
the
light
of the
purpose
is to
whether
suppression hearing
determine
a confession resulting from custodial
interrogation
coerced. That
is to
determination
be uninfluenced
truth or
falsity
Denno,
confession. See Jackson
v.
U.S.
84 S.Ct.
II Miranda Arizona the United States Court Supreme concluded to procedural safeguards protect a necessary from the suspect of in-custo- inherently compelling pressures dy “which work to interrogations undermine the individual’s will to resist and to him to where he would compel speak not so otherwise do Id. at freely.” 384 U.S. S.Ct. In order to the Fifth fully guarantee privilege Amendment against self-incrimination:
He must warned that be to he has prior any questioning to silent, remain right he can be anything says law, used him in a against court of he has right of an and that presence if he cannot afford attorney, an one will attorney be for him appointed prior any if he questioning so desires. exercise these Opportunity be rights must afforded to him throughout the interroga- tion. After such have been and such warnings given, him, afforded opportunity individual knowingly may *9 366
and waive these and to answer intelligently rights agree questions or make statement. But unless until such and waiver are warnings and demonstrated by prosecution trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be him. used against 479, (footnote omitted).
Id. at
86
at 1630
S.Ct.
and
Miranda
concomitant determina
warnings
tion
made a
whether a dеfendant has
and volun
knowing
are
waiver of
now
to the admission
tary
rights
prerequisites
of a
if an individual is “taken
or
custody
confession
into
only
his
otherwise
freedom
authorities in
deprived
by
any
478,
Id. at
subjected
and
significant way
questioning.”
v.
added).6
86
at 1630
See Commonwealth
(emphasis
S.Ct.
Gardner,
(1980) (failure
Subsequent interrogations ments as a result of custodial obtained knowingly, intelligently determine whether the defendant whether rights his Miranda waived voluntarily trial over the statement used at gave defendant voluntarily v. supra. Commonwealth objection. O’Bryant, his See her state- Appellee assertion not contest Commonwealth’s does they were not elicited in sense that ments were “volunteered” interrogation Interrogation must reflect equivalent. functional or its custody beyond that inherent compulsion above and measure of questioning or express and “words Interrogation is defined as itself. reasonably likely an to elicit police should know are actions that the Innis, 446 suspect.” v. Rhode Island incriminating response from the 1682, 1689, (1980) (footnotes 297 291, 301, L.Ed.2d 64 100 S.Ct. U.S. omitted). conclude did the trial court not nor Appellee does contend of events Branch’s version Palma’s or that either Officer Officer express ques- equivalent of Emergency was the functional Room Innis, v. supra Brewer with tioning. Compare Rhode Island v. Williams, L.Ed.2d 424 51 U.S. S.Ct. (1969). Simala, More- A.2d 575 Pa. address, name, over, background questions such as asking general religion constitute does not occupation, marital status and age and meaning See Com- of Miranda. interrogation within the custodial DuVal, A.2d monwealth v. *10 a custo- remains both inquiries for However, prerequisite the state- a defendant’s have held Thus, we dial interrogation. if: are admissible ments to, “calculated conduct to police response made in
[N]ot If the state- evoke admissions.” to to, likely or expected compel- without any voluntarily freely ment is “given the lack notwithstаnding is admissible influences,” it ling Yount, 455 Pa. v. Commonwealth warnings. Miranda of Miranda, supra, citing 242, (1974), 246 A.2d 314 at 726. 1629, 16 L.Ed.2d at 478, 86 at S.Ct. 384 U.S. ques- if the police for only are called warnings Miranda is, expect- or likely interrogation; constitutes tioning statements. incriminating or other a confession ed to elicit v. Commonwealth Símala, supra; v. See Commonwealth v. (1975); A.2d 898 Commonwealth 168, 354 Boone, 467 Pa. Cf. Common- (1972). A.2d 333 D’Nicuola, 448 Pa. (1977). A.2d 1056 475 Pa. McLaughlin, wealth v. 63, 70 440, 453, 387 A.2d Sero, v. Simala, Pa. v. also Commonwealth (1978). See A.2d 575
Ill is based in this case a new trial of grant The trial court’s an accused that statements conclusion on its erroneous if Amendment the Fifth purposes for “involuntary” are caused by to speak compulsion from an internal result they conduct any in the absence illness, even mental from the accused. a response to elicit reasonably likely police in this on language relied trial court In so holding, 177, 392 Ritter, 481 Pa. v. in Commonwealth opinion Court’s cert, 2014, 60 913, 99 denied, 441 U.S. S.Ct. (1978), A.2d 305 under- In to II). properly order (Ritter (1979) L.Ed.2d 386 it in light II we must consider of Ritter meaning stand the A.2d 433 Ritter, Pa. of Commonwealth I). (Ritter conviction of a defendant’s I rеversed
In Ritter this Court holding suppression manslaughter and voluntary arson which a confession declining suppress court erred defendant made after one and one-half hours of police Based on the interrogation. following this Court testimony, concluded in Ritter I that his confession was involuntary:
Officer Soprano, testifying appellant’s suppression stated that after he with hearing, initially spoke appellant, and, he decided that had a appellant psychiatric problem in fact, tried to reach a psychiatrist prior questioning addition, the officer stated that appellant. during course of the interrogation, appellant whimpering, Moreover, looked tired.” the officer sobbing “really had not for three slept stated that appellant days prior his . . . interrogation. *11 203-04,’ A.2d at 433.
462 Pa. at remand, the Commonwealth introduced testi- Following an alleged that the defendant volunteered admission mony after the In twelve hours first confession. approximately II stated: Ritter this Court the at the prosecution suppres-
The еvidence presented by
trial
not
second
did
appellant’s
sion hearing preceding
which
us to
compelled
that
of the conditions
indicate
any
earlier statement
to the state police
appellant’s
suppress
in such a
that would indicate
way
officer had changed
fact,
was
In
voluntary.
statement
subsequent
that this
that
indicates the contrary;
evidence
prosecution’s
rest, that he was “shaky”
not had any
still had
appellant
from the same
suffering
still
and “crying,” apparently
the investigating
that prompted
pressures
psychological
him.
aid for
officer to seek psychiatric
state police
Ritter II held
Consequently,
It
is not relevant
was allegedly
appeal
first
in appellant’s
us
by
suppressed
while the state-
questioning
to рolice
made in response
“spontane-
was supposedly
ment at issue in this appeal
earlier statement
ruling
appellant’s
ous.”
we stated that
involuntary,
state
police
voluntary
line of distinction [between
“[T]he
is that at which
self-di-
governing
involuntary confession]
nature or
of whatever
compulsion,
rection is lost and
or
the confes-
infused,
helps
propel
however
propels
at 434
from
Id.,
Pa. at
340 A.2d
quoting
sion.”
Alston,
317 A.2d
Commonwealth v.
at 307.
Ritter,
Commonwealth v.
and the cases cited therein the defendants
In Alston
to the confession.
interrogation prior
subjected
will
a defendant’s
impinging upon
While internal elements
render
condition
psychological
may
such as his physical
neither
a confession which follows interrogation involuntary,
nor the United States Constitution protect
Pennsylvania
which
from
originate entirely
a defendant from statements
a mental disease. A
from
resulting
internal compulsion
confession
does not make the resulting
to confess
compulsion
that Ritter II stands
for
today
only
inadmissable. We hold
an “invol
after the
have elicited
police
proposition
an
men
from
interrogation
obviously
confession
untary”
were influ
defendant,
statements which
subsequent
ill
tally
be
the earlier interrogation may
or flow from
enced by
of further
interrogation.
in the absence
even
involuntary
*12
IV
in this case is limited to
standard of review
Our
the suppression
the factual
of
findings
whether
determining
whether
the legal
the record and
court are supported
are in error. Commonwealth
drawn therefrom
conclusions
V
Defense counsel’s
objections
the admission of ap
pellee’s statements
included the
arguably
alternate ground
that
they
inadmissible for testimonial incompetency.
Mozzillo,
See Commonwealth v.
Appellee’s
evidence
the
that the Commonwealth’s
ground
on
judgment
beyond
to
her
a reasonable
prove
sanity
was insufficient
However,
failed
exercise her
right
doubt.
denial
motion in
from the
court’s
of that
trial
cross-appeal
in this
did not address the issue
arrest of
judgment
court did not
311(a)(5).
Pa.R.A.P.
trial
Court. See
and neither
nor
the issue in its
the defendant
discuss
opinion
Thus,
the
or
issue here.
argued
the
briefed
Commonwealth
the dissent
in
the
issue
deciding
sufficiency
raising
raising
a court’s sua sponte
violates the sound rule against
before it
See
by
litigants.
not properly placed
issues
(1975).
461 Pa.
Because failed involuntary, trial court statements appellee’s reasons new trial. additional for a consider defendant’s Philadelphia of the Court of Com- order Consequently, is vacated the record a new trial granting mon Pleas for further consideration remanded to Court motion for a support reasons advanced motion. trial, of that new and disposition J., ZAPPALA, NIX, J., files a which dissenting opinion joins.
NIX, Justice, dissenting. of an ill individ- unquestionably The delusional utterances as not be admitted substantive evidence generally ual should of that crime See guilt person charged. 334, Ware, (1974); Commonwealth v. 459 Pa. A.2d 258 Mozzillo, A.2d 874 *14 372 such evidence can only purpose serve, at legitimately
the adjudicative
is to reflect
the mental
stage,
upon
state
Commonwealth v.
the actor when that
is in
Eng
question.
land,
A. Evidence
28, 1978.
ness Prior to March
demonstrate a
long history
facts clearly
The undisputed
28, 1978,
March
when
illness
to Easter Sunday,
mental
prior
remedy
where
general,
this
has afforded
situations
Court
rights
his
is the
to advise a defendant of
the trial court has failed
stage
proceedings
the defect occurred.
to the
at which
return of the
Kulp,
Cathey, supra;
See,
v.
e.g.,
v.
Commonwealth
Commonwealth
Miller,
Pa.
(1978);
v.
Commonwealth
476 Pa.
382 A.2d
Tyler,
(1976);
v.
A.2d 220
Commonwealth
Williams,
Pa.
312 A.2d
(1976);
v.
A.2d 617
however,
circumstances,
purpose
no
(1973). In the instant
597
would be served
already
appeal.
remanding
us on
a matter
before
First,
Hall,
Pa.
The first occasion Ms. in of 1976. On that May record occurred were her and chasing informed her sister that people Bracey behavior, As a result of this appellee’s to kill her. trying Temple her to the Crisis Center of University took family records indicatе that was appellee Hospital. hospital hallucinations and was diagnosed then experiencing auditory as was medi- type. Appellee given schizophrenic, paranoid cation and released. Little and another friend took again
Later Bobby to the because of mental On appellee hospital problems. occasion, that refused to as a reason stay, giving that on were outside to harm motorcycles waiting people from time would her. Little testified Bobby or medication. paranoid requiring occasionally get depressed For this she on one occasion ex- example, during period the belief that on the street were pressed people trying kill her. continued to receive medication and
Appellee periodically records reflect that acute Medical experience episodes. both in May July, appellee required emergency care) treatment at the Crisis Center. (including in-patient to manifest During appellee again began February that Nakia paranoia. stated to her sister was acting She manner as she had been trans- strange though and looked formed into a wolf. also stated to a cousin that Nakia’s She Nakia against father and his to turn family attempting her.
In March 1978 her conduct became bizarre. increasingly her name was Eve and that she She stated to people March, part the Lord’s messenger. early *17 home where he observed appellee’s Little went Bobby a in which appellee pseudo-religious ceremony conducting she claimed to time During'this be a nude Christ. appellee
also a in her home and told a number of kept sunlamp people out, that if ever went the world would end. lamp that was taken to the Crisis Center on March again She 1978. The records of that visit indicate that com- appellee that and visual hallucinations and she plained auditory was experiencing feelings paranoia. Appellee pro- sent home. March again vided with medication On to consent to further treatment at any refused she her On that date stated to sister Crisis Center. knives and forks and hidden them through- Nakia had taken the house. out in the of her intensity
Because of the increase alarming and her resistance to medical help, appel- bizarre behavior to have her com- attempted lee’s had family unsuccessfully in- The commitment petition mitted to Friends Hospital. cluded, had started a fire in a pan a statement that appellee to drive in the middle of floor order which she placed home, and then climbed out on roof evil from her spirits neither coat nor shoes. petition dwelling wearing of the her voices and of hearing claims also recited appellee’s After or to take medication. receive treatment refusal to at the hours a of seventy-two confinement for period Community Philadelphia of North Central Center Crisis Center, she was dis- Retardation Health/Mental Mental During order on court March charged by that appellee records reflect commitment, the hospital around had been flying of furniture claimed various articles her room. commitment, the involuntary release from her Following a During conduct. bizarre to exhibit continued the date 16,1978 and March home between visit to appellee’s had that appellee sister observed appellee’s of the killing, ball, cross, a album, crystal Bible, a photograph arranged living the floor of book on a witchcraft a scorpio was employing that she explained Bracey room. Ms. theOn Nakia. baby, save her in her prayers objects killing, appellee the date before week one Sunday had had grown bigger that Nakia Little to Bobby stated *18 had stated that Nakia kill her. also to She attempted into an animal. turned 28, Ms. March preceding week immediately the
During Nakia, was her daughter, to her cousin that stated Bracey a Nakia had in her possession that whenever and possessed During to stab fork, attempt appellee. she would knife or a Ms. Bracey brother observed span appellee’s this sаme time a a Bible crystal ball, containing a shopping bag carrying testified that Her brother further a witchcraft book. and 28, it was March the days immediately preceding during to take Ms. to receive Bracey for him personally necessary three occasions. separate treatment on psychiatric Mental Illness at The Time B. Evidence Establishing The Incident the Easter, was in before
During appellee Saturday her behavior Although appeared Little. Bobby company her evening in the of the towards early part day, normal and Ms. behavior to its effect began Bracey’s medication lose Messiah, that she erratic. Little was became She told to part and sent baby’s good that she had Nakia baptized bad also to send the heaven, baby’s and that she now wanted home at approximately heaven. Little left part appellee’s to time at the home staying Nakia was at this midnight. mother, usually stayed where the child Little’s which is was difficulties. experiencing the times during appellee Little her son (March 28) Mrs. informed morning The next had taken Nakia from night during appellee alarmed because of appellee’s Little residence. Becoming home. state, Little immediately appellee’s mental went told he could not Little and him refused admit Appellee a ritual for performing take the child because appellee the child to the front door her. then Appellee brought time, this appellee held her for Little to see. At both up into were nude. Little force his attempted way child in the him hand in repelling the house stabbed ran from the nude. him. house Subsequently, appellee Little entered the home after left and found Nakia in the center lying of the floor of the living room. Also on the lying floor was a Bible, a book entitled Helping Yourself Witchcraft, to White a photograph album, a key chain, cross, several pieces of jewelry, crystal ball, a bracelet, a tooth, hound’s spirits of peppermint, and a copy to a lyrics popular song. Nakia had sustained two stab wounds which resulted in her deаth.
Several police officers observed appellee naked running down the street. When one of the officers attempted her, stop she screamed and continued running. She was in a finally apprehended house four and one-half blocks At this away. point was nude for a set except beads.
Appellee was taken to the where she hospital became hysterical, “screaming yelling and her banging hands on the floor,” and had to be calmed and seated officers. She then was transported vehicle to by police the Police ride, Administration Building. During which lasted minutes, approximately appellee began religious chanting psalms and her feet. stomping During administrative questioning police headquarters, had to be re- strained on several occasions from her removing clothing. the entire she was Throughout period incoherent and contra- dictory. Conclusion
C. In addition to this uncontroverted serious testimony at the time of the killing, mental illness prior confused, anxious, irrational circumstances of the her killing, arrest, time of the all of the and delusional state at the with a to her apprehension, medical evaluations subsequent demonstrate that Ms. would conclusively single exception, a court on March 1978. After was insane Bracey legally examination, conducted aby psychiatrist ordered psychiatric on incompetent April she was declared and psychologist, for a period ninety and committed to Byberry Act, Act of July the Mental Health Procedures under days et seq. 101 et seq., P.S. P.L. No. § § (Supp.1981-82). examined her while who Cooke,
Dr. a forensic psychologist believed to be delusional.2 She found her she was custody as Eve. believed was reincarnated She she had died and control the had the power to her and that she sun spoke a mission to “lead your she had sun. believed She an sent to an- she was thought angel home.” She people her to The doctor also found the end of the world. nounce unknown were speaking be paranoid. thought people She witchcraft and could were tongues; they practicing hurt; and nice to her would be read her thoughts; anyone against her including attorney, working that people, would be that Ms. said she Bracey her. Dr. Cooke testified benefit the world and it reunited with her and it would baby be sent to heaven as sacrifice. baby was God’s wish that as a chronic schizophren- Dr. Ms. diagnosed Bracey Cooke that she “was insane ic, legally and concluded type paranoid act, and felt not know the quality because she did of seventy- was doing right.”3 spite that what she *20 psychologist specializing psychol- in forensic 2. Dr. is a clinical Cooke psychology ogy. in 1966 from the He earned a Ph.D. in clinical Psychologist University became Forensic of Iowa. 1973 he Chief faculty Hospital. on the of the State He is at the Norristown University Pennsylvania, Continuing Program where he Education of faculty Temple psychology of and also on the lectures on forensic University. position some two he has examined In his at Norristown charged mentally patients He ill with crimes. also or three thousand psychiatric рsychological interns. He is a con- trains residents and Hill, Camp a state correctional sultant at Prison and Graterford twenty-three papers housing juveniles. published He has chapters institution professional journals, in responsibility and has testified on criminal book ten times. at least Bracey history upon and her medical 3. Based his examination of Ms. treatment, including diagnosis Dr. concluded: and Cooke Doctor, upon your psychological Q. of Miss based evaluation Bracey, degree you opinion you hold to a reasonable do have an that Bracey certainty regarding whether Miss on of scientific twenty-sixth, the nature and March the understood [sic] actions, quality doing she was of her and understood that what wrong? was opinion yes. A. I Q. an do have opinion? And what is that cross-examination, one (71) of Dr. pages Cooke remained firm in this view.
Dr. Sadoff, Robert a forensic was psychiatrist firm equally in the view that Bracey Ms. was insane.4 He legally person- examined El twice: ally vita at Bracey April City Hall June at He and Dr. Cooke Byberry. requested to do additional The direct testing. examination of Dr. the Sadoff culminated with following: Doctor, Q. case, based examination in upon this your all other materials available to do including you, you an as to opinion hold a of medical degree certainty Elvita the time com- Bracey, whether at she regarding the on was mitted acts Easter aware Sunday Well, stated, parts A. has it has nature of as the law three the act; quality what the the of the act and whether or not she knew understanding any doing wrong, my one is that if she was was part responsible compromised, the is not of that then individual thought M’Naghten that nature the rule. I she did know the under is, very she was of going act. That she knew on a concrete basis individual, baby, damage, if on to inflict not death on consistency my opinion that of I there is a with but it is think —and other, quality believing know that she did not the court [sic] of her act. is, doing right, that she was That that she believed that what was was, killing, it quality so in her mind the was not much commands, making instead, following and for a matter of God’s sacrifice, good spirits, dоing something world. reuniting knew, level, was on a concrete there And so that while she killing right, doing involved, was that what she she also felt followed. had to be and that God’s command Q. Alright. taught Temple and Medical formerly Law School Sadoff Dr. Psychiatry at the Professor Clinical He is now Associate School. at Villanova Universi- University Pennsylvania ty law and lecturer psychia- one in certifications: He has two Board of Law. School Neurology Psychiatry in 1967 try Board American from the Board of Forensic psychiatry the American from in forensic one *21 many papers published in national Psychiatry, He has Inc. in 1978. three has written psychiatry and journals medicine or of law and Psy- Lawyers and books, Psychiatry, A Guide for Practical Forensic Injuries (1975) Psychic and Violence chiatrists, (1975); co-author legal M’Naghten (1978). He examined for the Responsibility has and expert an He has been occasions. insanity on hundred issue several and responsibility in state pertaining to mental witness on matters federal courts. was doing and what she of those acts and quality nature wrong? I have an Yes, opinion.
A. McNaughton to the is referred And that Q. question issue; correct? is that Yes, it is.
A. issue? on that What is your opinion All Q. right. psychotic has had a chronic is that she A. My opinion that was on existing that and day which preceded illness form, and on psychotic in a blatant in my opinion, day, her her delusional system, her the basis of psychoses, Elvita thinking, Bracey, her distorted hallucinations knew the her daughter time that she stabbed at the is, I take a The nature was doing. nature of what she I it and get plunge the drawer I have to togo knife. it into a baby. did not know. what she of the act
The quality know she was that, did she act for me is Quality what the conse- she know Did daughter? her killing in the context of action were and of her quences situation? reality Sunday. my Easter her apartment, morning,
Sunday affected so and her hallucinations delusions opinion, belief that it was her and her behavior her judgment who had been child a bedeviled killing she was that that she family Little’s by Bobby the devil given system, her delusional believed, because of firmly take kill her and come in and was going Little Bobby knоwing not led to her and that also the baby away, her daughter. in killing of her act full quality Yes, against killing? is a law she know there And did Did she believe killing. a law against knows there’s she killed her she daughter she stabbed her at the time she law she knew breaking wrong? By was doing doing wrong. that, “I am time, meant her, for But also wrong in her and has the devil daughter the devil. killing My me will come in and prevent exorcised. He needs to be *22 382 I it this the devil out of her. must handle
from getting way.” she did not believe at the precise
And for that reason that she was doing something that she stabbed her time wrong. morally Ms. suffers from schiz- diagnosis Bracey
Dr. Sadoff’s as a life-long diagno- was described type ophrenia, paranoid through forty-eight He maintained the diagnosis sis. of cross-examination. pages it for has had is a She life-long diagnosis.
The diagnosis the begin- and probably to that Easter Sunday years prior outward 1976, but first of it were even before nings when she aware of happened that I am manifestation messenger was the and believed she heard the voices of God. which means she . . . diagnosis, to hold that continues
She or overtly crazy,.... blatantly psychotic records her medical into evidence also placed Appellee from impressions or following diagnoses which contained had seen and evaluated who her:. (8) psychiatrists eight 2, type July 1977 Paranoid Chager, M.D. 11,-1978 state Paranoid Chager, March M.D. Johnson, Paranoid state March A. M.D. Turner Paranoid... Bird, March L. M.D. making “There is no March (Indecipherable) of sense of this she is unless hospitalized. can I nothing recommend other.” depressive Bluett, Manic March M.D. Milton L. illness, type manic schizophrenic vonSehlichten, April Chronic M.D. Alex illness, paranoid in nature Schizophrenia, Krishnaraz, Aug. M.D. Muthaiya P. type paranoid The single exception in this record this overwhelming evidence supporting finding legal was the insanity Kool, Dr. Kenneth testimony called psychiatrist prosecution. Dr. Kool did not conduct a personal evaluation of Ms. nor did Bracey he hear the of the various testimony *23 witnesses. His answers were in to a response hypothetical question twenty-eight pages length consisting qf selected portions evidence. Ms. Bracey’s prior hospitaliza- tions, prеvious diagnosis, medications not were included in the hypothetical question. Although conceding appellee’s illness, mental Dr. Kool maintained that she was sane legally and in touch with reality.5
With due deference to Dr. Kool’s I competence, believe the record, from the following excerpt which reflects the con- cluding to Dr. Kool on question put cross-examination and his response, and t-he subsequent redirect examination most informative.
Q. Doctor, Bible, if Miss a had a Bracey book, witchcraft
a book, picture ball, Scorpio charm, some weeds burning a little hub and she and cap her daughter were naked except for jewelry, Miss Bracey performing some kind of ritual that she as perceived necessary to free her daughter of the possession and the her, evil spirits that possessed would she you was in say touch with reality?
A. Yes.
MR. SCUTTI: Thank I have you. no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LUNKENHEIMER:
Q. Why? A. Because ritual has been religion with us as as the long
recorded history mankind, and religion and ritual are Bracey 5. Dr. Kool concluded that Ms. schizophrenia, suffered from type, prominent paranoid schizo-affect with features. in the of man- history now than ever more prominent on the face of the there are more kind, people because mankind, all of history earth than ever in all of these mentioned things these articles and religious store. are available easily any exorcism does not equal and ritual and Religious things Does not equal Does not equal insanity. psychosis. don’t things, who do these you schizophrenia. People are It crazy. are nuts or therefore, they say, they illness. mental doesn’t equal Church; is that exorcism in Catholic There is Q. correct?
A. I believe so. that the of the belief above, firmly I am light establishing its burden of to carry failed Therefore, I would re- doubt. a reasonable sanity beyond *24 dismissing Pleas Common the order of the Court verse as to and discharge in arrest of judgment motion remanded should be cause then charges. criminal of Ms. disposition the proper court to determine the trial Health Proce- the Mental the provisions under Bracey 143, 101 et 1976, P.L. No. § Act, July Act dures seq. (Supp.1981-82). 7101 et 50 P.S. seq., § opinion. dissenting this ZAPPALA, J., joins