*1 in no amended or way waived, so reduced, long as the desires to have these city bonds excluded computation its indebtedness. obli- very this Upon on SEPTA does the gation predicate city position its project self-liquidating and that the bond issue should be excluded from the calculation indebtedness. The fact that city’s there is additional promise on the of SEPTA to more part pay money under certain circumstances and that these funds are to amortize beyond payment necessary above any the bonds no absolutely has the issue be- bearing fore us. other contractual -arrangements between Any so do alter parties the essential long they obligation SEPTA’s repay characteristics need not be at this time. considered bonds, have the action taken by Since we concluded the court below is its order entirely appropriate, affirmed. in the part
Mr. Jones took considera- Justice case. tion or decision Appellant. v. Bruno, Commonwealth *2 1969. reargued May 1, Argued January 1968; Before C. J., Jones, O’Brien, Cohen, Bell, Eagen, JJ. Pomeroy, Roberts appellant. Quinlan, L. Jr., Daniel *3 District Attorney, A. Assistant Devlin, Richard for Common- Moss, him Milton 0. District Attorney, appellee. wealth,
Opinion 1969: June 27, Eagen, Mr. Justice Court from an order of the are appeals These of Mont- General Jail Delivery and Terminer and Oyer Harry John the committing appellant, County gomery from an order Hospital State to Farview Bruno, County Montgomery Common Pleas of Court of of habeas a writ petition appellant’s dismissing corpus. ar- April and was on 26, 1966, arrested
Bruno was on five of murder. following day charges the raigned held at preliminary hearing was May 4, 1966, On On plea guilty. 2, June entered Bruno Bruno on indicted five charges jury a grand 1966, murder. the May 13, 1966, Montgomery on Coun-
Meanwhile,
filed a petition
appoint-
attorney
district
ty
inquire
into Bruno’s sanity.
commission
of a
ment
petition.
Bruno’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the
After
denied
argument,
court,
July 6, 1966,
motion
appointing
dismiss and entered an order
An
followed
sanity commission.
to this Court
appeal
Pa.
Commonwealth v.
quashed.
Bruno,
Thereafter extensive commission held sanity report On hearings. June submitted its 8, 1967, the Court of and Terminer of Coun- Oyer Montgomery ill ty. report concludes that Bruno is mentally and incompetent stand and that he has crimi- nal tendencies.
On June
court entered
order com-
12, 1967,
Bruno
mitting
but deferred
Farview State Hospital,
the execution of the order until June
so that
28, 1967,
or
might request
his counsel
relatives
a hear-
Bruno,
ing. Thereupon
excepted
Bruno’s
to the sani-
attorney
report
commission’s
on the
ty
ground
record
support
does not
con-
commission’s conclusions and
evidence. On June
Com-
hearsay
tains
30, 1967,
exceptions
motion to strike
monwealth’s
was sus-
tained on the
that Commonwealth v.
ground
Ballem,
disapproves
391 Pa.
Thereafter, of Common in the Court corpus Pleas Mont- beas *4 petition was dismissed County. without gomery ground on the commitment order was hearing purpose no useful would appealable served by hearing. a followed. appeals
These question statement first present- Appellant’s a “May is: sanity Court commission be sub- ed He trial?” jury contends that: a “The stituted sub- commission sanity a a jury [for vio- stitution trial] jury appellant’s as a trial lates constitutional guaranteed by [to United the Sixth Amendment [by] §9 §6] [and Article States Constitution] I, Pennsylvania Constitution.” support sanity commission To contention that a his jury as- “substituted” for a has been for the an serts that his commitment to institution criminally he severe insane a “sentence” as is as charged. he is of the crime were convicted agree to an institu- that a commitment We cannot prison criminally tantamount to a tion for the insane is certainly Hospital Although State sentence. Farview Pa. Rev. model see 110 U. L. institution, is not a Note, prepared say equiva- (1961), not that it is we are prison prison. Punitive in a lent to a confinement supervision hospital. not custodial a the same as prison programs in a are not same Rehabilitative hospital. psychiatric In addition to treatment a consequences of a that the a commitment to the fact hospital consequences a are the same not competency prison proceeding determining sentence, trial trial “substitute” for a deter- stand charge mining guilt or innocence of a criminal because proceedings clearly different issues. determine two Appellant Pate Robinson, cites 383 U.S. apparently support (1966), his conten S. Ct. constitutionally jury entitled to a trial. tion that'he only process held due Pate v. Robinson, however, hearing competency requires on the accused the circumstances trial when at stand raised a competency. Certainly about the decision in doubt require did Robinson trial on Pate n. the issue guilt or innocence—the the accused’s accused had already tried and convicted. Neither been did the de require Robinson jury Pate v. that a deter cision competent accused was to stand trial. mine whether
205 opinion does note the law Although passing pro of the state tried and accused convicted the competency vides a to determine the issue of jury to stand process there is no that due suggestion a All the research requires jury. which our authority has uncovered indicates the Sixth Amendment does not require that a determine the jury competency Davis, the accused to trial. United stand States v. 365 F. 2d 256 Cir. and authorities 251, (6th 1966), If cited therein. re the Sixth Amendment does not a quire process the due clause of the jury, certainly Fourteenth Amendment not it. have require does We also determined that Arti Pennsylvania Constitution, cle I, does a trial on this 9, require jury §§6 issue. Commonwealth v. 384 A. Bechtel, Pa. 120 2d 295 (1956).
Appellant
also submits
that his
commitment
Hospital
period
Farview State
for an indefinite
vio
lates his constitutional
trial.”1
right
“speedy
a
All
the authorities our research has uncovered indicate that
the federal constitutional
guarantee
crimi
nal trial does not
that an
require
incompetent accused
be tried.
United States ex rel. Thomas v.
E.g.,
Pate,
261 F. United States (5th ; 2d 729 Cir. 1958) F. State v. Supp. ; Violett, Vt. (D. 1955) argu offers no 1961). Appellant N.W. 2d 598 (S.D. *6 interpret con ment us to state which would lead stitution differently. question pre- statement of the second
Appellant’s con- to this Court is: commission “May sanity sented listen confidential medical records and ‘hearsay’ sider (384 of Miranda v. Arizona U.S. testimony violative He 478)?” 436) (378 and Escobedo v. Illinois U.S. should report that: “The sanity contends commission’s errors. rejected” have because of alleged been in- that sanity We cannot commission’s agree be contends. should restricted as quiry commission We have said that a repeatedly sanity de not criminal character. It does not is hearing punished. not termine or the accused shall be whether for the- as much benefit of It merely determines, of the or not accused as the benefit whether public, tried; condition is such that he shall not be his mental to inform and advise solely and its determination whether ac himself decides or who judge to stand trial if he competent not, and, cused is hospital be committed to a or he should whether Ballem, v. Commonwealth recovery. pending E.g., v. Common Bechtel, supra; Commonwealth supra; Pa. Shovlin, Superior ex rel. Tate v. Ct. 370, wealth A. 924 (1965). 2d the sanity fact commission hearing Given the think we proceeding, not a criminal neither the extent is mandated hearsay rule, nor right Miranda confrontation, the constitutional Ct. 86 S. 384 U.S. are Arizona, (1966), applicable. in Miranda v. decision Arizona
Both and the derive to confrontation pro- constitutional right apply only proceedings. Thus visions to criminal provides: “nor shall Constitution the United States compelled [any person] any be criminal case to against (Emphasis add- himself.” Amend. 5 a witness ) prosecutions en- “In criminal accused shall ed. all right joy witnesses ... to be confronted with against him . . . and to have the assistance of counsel (Emphasis added.) Equiva- Amend. 6 his defense.” provisions Pennsylvania also lent Constitution prosecutions: “In are limited to criminal all criminal prosecutions hath heard accused himself his counsel ... meet the witnesses face compelled give to face ... he cannot be evidence against (Emphasis added.) §9 Article himself.” I, right against
Miranda v. Arizona self- extended the *7 and the coun- incrimination to the assistance of proceeding,” from formal “criminal the sel the i.e., police interrogation. For we reasons, similar long ago right against indicated that the self-incrimi- person compelled protects an- nation question propounded making any by to him those swer purpose testifying “for the of mental examination regard trial. thereto” at a criminal Commonwealth Pa. 35 A. 2d Both Musto, 300, 306, simply recognize guilt Musto and the Miranda de- begin process trial. does not at same termining compel do not extend however, us to considerations, prosecutions” of “criminal to include the boundaries hearings sanity which on an commission focus issue guilt or accused’s the innocence. than other rights expressly the constitutional which course, Of proceedings may also be in criminal inherent exist provisions person that “no shall be constitutional the liberty property process or deprived without life, of due applies obviously which noncriminal as law,” of proceedings. We do in criminal not as believe, well process requires evidentiary re- the due however, appellant. by Such restric- advocated strictions impede diagnosis unnecessarily ac- anof tions would a detriment which would be cused’s mental condition frequently be a detriment as as would accused process prosecution. does believe that due We purpose impediments these when mandate punish proceeding is to determine not whether to by depriving liberty, him whether but the accused help providing psychiatric by treatment him supervision protection, for his well own custodial protection public. appel- only the issues raised We consider argued questions, briefed be- lant’s statement opinion express any We other fore the Court. posed by proceedings below. issues affirmed. Orders Mr. Mr. Mr. Chief Justice Justice Jones Bell, opinion. join in this Pomeroy
Justice Opinion Pomeroy Concurring Mr. : Justice opinion I While subscribe to the Mr. Justice speaking feel Court, constrained, I Eagen, light dissenting opinions, mention additional which have led me to this conclusion. considerations opinion appeal relative to this The division *8 supposed of a or between the conflict, conflict, because rights rights the and of the accused on one hand the disagreement society but of the because other, of on rights concerning of two of the interaction the accused right the to a fair on the individual; trial, hand, one right to a the the both of and other, guaranteed both Federal are Constitution which Pennsylvania. of the Constitution and Sanity duly established this Commission, case of June 12, under The Mental Health Act of Act 1951, L. 50 P.S. P. Art. as amended, III, §327, composed qualified psychiatrists of and and two §1202, competent consisting lawyer, report, of 16 filed its typewritten concluding pages, is that the defendant mentally ill in as defined The Mental Health Act, competent tendency stand and criminal stemming specifically, from mental illness. his More opinion the Commission was of the that defendant past suffering from chronic “is now and has been schizophrenia paranoid which has existed a num tendency years”, his criminal stems ber mental “as shown his belief his illness, suspected people eliminating only by can he and his protected forthcoming family relief [I]f . . . suspected persons he of certain after the elimination report suspects.” other The conclud have seek will finding defendant have that the “does not ed with present ability to consult with counsel sufficient degree understanding, nor of rational a reasonable understanding of and factual he have a rational does charges proceedings flowing from the criminal lodged against him.” adopted by findings Commission were
the Court. petition corpus,
By for writ of habeas order of commitment based claimed it is report constitutes violation defendant’s on this jury that he trial and unconstitu- to a deprived liberty, tionally of his the lower court report ignore the Commission in effect, asked, findings based revoke the commit- thereon, its own proceed to the trial of the defendant order, ment imagine charges can One violation murder. petition process that would made were due resulted. conviction granted and a *9 210 Supreme statement
The cites the 383 Robinson, Pate v. in Court the United States that effect to Ed. 2d the (1966), L. U.S. hearing entitled to a “constitutionally Robinson was is This stand trial.” competency the issue of his present the adhered in and was true, course, cit- Court further said, Pate the case. opinion, Ed. L. v. United 350 U.S. Bishop States, ing that conviction “The concedes State (1956), vio- incompetent while he person legally an accused is must procedures and due that state process, lates adequate protect this right.” in out that point
The dissenting however, opinions, cannot be trial ease the defendant wants his and was it; Commission Sanity said have waived is Commission Sanity not his. If the State’s doing, ability in is that the defendant without stating correct degree to consult his counsel with reasonable with conclude of rational it is difficult understanding, with can counsel intelligently that defendant advise We desires tried. understanding rational that he to be lawyer it and note, passing, ha- writ of petition defendant who verified the corpus. There is it to me, beas seems danger, client zealous able counsel with the confusing a case this sort.
It is the incarceration Farview again, said, imprisonment but a substitute follow- Hospital might postpone appellant’s trial ing conviction, im- This it seems to two indefinitely. overlooks, me, points. right portant to a first, speedy like all other nut rights, absolute and auto- under matic; speedy means circumstances. As Court the United Supreme States has well stat- “ of a ‘The ed, necessarily relative. depends on circum- delays It is consistent rights stances. It to defendant. It does secures preclude rights public justice.’ Again, ‘Wheth- prosecution delay completing er amounts . . . *10 upon deprivation depends rights of unconstitutional purpose- delay the circumstances . . . The must not be oppressive.’ ingredient ful or or- ‘[T]he essential ” speed.’ derly expedition, States and not mere United Ewell, 383 U.S. 15 L. Ed. v. 116, 627, 120, 2d. quoted (1966), Hodges F. in United States, 1969). (8th 2d Cir. 543, pretrial Hodges delay case involved a due competency. commitment for determination of The re- psychiatric of examination defendant sult was that the competent. Following guidelines, Ewell the the appeal Appeals, 8th Circuit Court of from con- on a counterfeiting, of viction held that the Sixth Amend- guarantee ment’s of a trial had not been violat- paid particular ed. The Court first attention to the prevent oppressive safeguard, “to undue and incarcera- prior tion and held under trial”, that the circum- the four months of incarceration involved stances, Hodges incompetency because of the issue was not “un- oppressive”. singled due and The Circuit out Court possibilities safeguard, the third “to limit the that viz., impair long delay ability the will of an accused to de- important. properly most fend himself”, This is dissenting justices to the concern but of no less here, majority. concern to the point important ignored by
A second the dissents is Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act Spec. Act of October 20, 1966, Sess. No. L. 1966, P. 3, provides §4423(7), pro statutory 50 P.S. §423, designed expressly to insure that a cedure trial will not delayed of unwarranted because detention.1 sec This January 1967, repealing effective became This Act all in- provisions Tbe Mental Health Act of 1951. consistent As of Com tion provides Sanity that after the findings person request the committed has mission, ex for Department arrange of Public Welfare mental condition aby physician amination his must be request associated with This Department. after six for first time granted by Department often demanded as months’ and can be hospitalization, per committed Moreover, any as once a thereafter. year affi corpus son of habeas may petition writ person physician opinion davit of a disability or that his mental longer mentally disabled, hospital facility, require does not care or treatment upon proof rests and in the burden proceeding such detention for the continued responsible director (b) (2). 50 P.S. Thus, accused. Ibid, §426, §4426 procedure, available readily Bruno has case, *11 of a recheck he have frequently, and periodically may, in is not stand trial. He competence his mental recourse. any confined without definitely un- in his dissent, Mr. notes, Justice Roberts of Act Health Mental Retardation der the Mental and position post in must bail person appellant’s 1966, out-patient in order to if receive directed Court, fact proceeding this labels the argues care, There is no of that com- as criminal. question, course, adjunct these circumstances is an to a mitment under requirement proceeding; therefore, criminal post bail before allowed to leave the accused appropriate. He would custody is have do State no about his mental com- question if there were same to secure pretrial he wished freedom. Be- petence or not whether committed incom- bail, out ing on the bearing guilt. issue has petency, repealed 1969, absolutely. July 1, latter Act was 50 P.S. provisions (a). as to were release Similar contained §4701 supra. amended, Act See Com. ex rel. Health Mental Shovlin, Pa. 213 A. 2d 327 Wolenski may society yet It well be that has not reached the persons handling answer both who are criminally mentally accused and found incom- to be petent, and to have criminal tendencies. Better meth- may, perhaps ods need to devised to accommo- be, competing speedy date the claims fair trial and these situations. It however, does not follow, person position that a in such an unfortunate should be able to on the one demand, trial and hand, request granted if his and conviction results, charge, on the other that he hand, was denied a fair incompetent trial because he was tried when he was defend himself. If there is to be fairness, there can- speed, any not be absolute sense; a trial is to be speedy, in an absolute it will not be sense, fair. The Pennsylvania, statutes and the lower court in act- ing upon protect rights have endeavored to them, both process, any defendant. This like other, subject but such abuse, abuse is not disclosed the record before the Court in sugges- this case. The part tions malevolent motivation on Com- justified. monwealth are not
Mr. Chief Justice Bell join and Mr. Justice Jones opinion. in
Dissenting Opinion by Mb. Justice Cohen: adjudged incompetent an accused When pro- whereby incompetent cedure should be established *12 might required defendant demand a trial Federal and State both Constitutions. recognize require appointment
I that this guardian incompetent to act on of a behalf of the de- procedures establishment fendant of so that to stand trial can the decision be made intelligently, incompetent by the either defendant or some one act- ing The behalf. on his proper- when Commonwealth, 214’ pro- to refuse to permitted should not be
ly requested, incompetency of defendant’s ceed because constitu- defendant a thereby deny guaranteed. tionally 86 Kent v. United 383 U.S. States,
Just as it in- Ed. where was Ct. 16 L. 2d 84 (1966), S. of both the worst dicated that “receives juvenile protections accorded neither that he gets worlds: treat- regenerative care nor the solicitous adults ment, re- incompetent children”; postulated so, him protections constitutional due neither ceives I litigation nor confinement. would use this proper, in- rights to enunciate the constitutional a vehicle competent defendants.
I dissent. Dissenting Opinion O’Beien: Me. Justice The opinion represents majority resolution notions is abhorrent to fundamental instant case strenuously due at all process. Although times . been incar maintaining innocence, has cerated, institution Farview State Hospital, without criminally tried and convict insane, of a Delineation the institution as ed crime. a hos to remove pital nothing stigma housing does its nor does insure that “criminally insane”, the' it only taking place treatment can adequate alone punishment into a a Hades haven for the transform appears it is a rare fact; “patient” sick.1 Right Birnbaum, Treatment, generally, 46 A.B.A.J. See Cameron, (D.C. v. Rouse 373 F. also 2d 451 See Cir. (D.C. 1965) Cameron, ; 348 F. 2d 1966) ; v. Darnell Cir. Miller (D.C. 1953), Overholser, Cir. F. 2d where the court or psychopath civilly sexual committed removed a hos dered'a criminally place insane because the pital ward for the ward than of treatment. punishment-rather
215 One at treatment he needs. Farview who receives the thoroughgoing study “It of that institution concludes, psychiatric deny type treat is difficult to that the Hospital, as available well ment at Farview State inadequate. actually given, Far- at Patients but few amused; view are cared fed, clothed, for, of them are treated.”2 by
Yet if not his con even were tainted criminally in insane, finement an institution for the possible given even he treatment were best hospital, in an actual the due he would still be denied process guaranteed by of law the Constitutions of this guarantee nation and this Commonwealth. of a speedy trial into was inserted our Constitutions3 both opportunity to afford an accused the to remove the upon cloud cast name and also accusation, prevent potentially exculpatory the loss evidence. apply Both of these reasons to the at case bar. attempt any principles
Without reason speedy majority inherent to a simply guarantee asserts that the of a trial does incompetent require that an accused cit tried, ing impression Pennsylvania this case first (only appellate case) interpreting four eases one guarantee. Although agree majority I federal with the guarantees that the federal state constitu accept blindly I tions are the see no reason to same, language majority. cited cases Williams, v. 432 Pa. A. (1968), In Com. 246 2d 356 we was essential held treatment because Jones was incar- Where, penal here, appellant institution. in a cerated con- was certainly required. hospital, treatment in a fined Hospitalization Mentally Criminals, Ill Note: 110 U. Pa. L. Rev. Pennsylvania I, Constitution, §9 Article and the Sixth Constitution, States to the United where federal trials Amendment involved. are appear fac the instant
none of cases does these thoroughly Howard considered. tual situation was two-para (5th 1958), Cir. 2d U. 261 F. S., solely upon opinion. per graph *14 It curiam relied n constitutionality statute, federal fact that the providing for commitment the 18 §§4244-4248, U.S.C.A. incompetent trial stand found to of those upheld United dangerous, v. been had Greenwood the Ct. Yet 410 States, 350 U.S. 76 S. speedy right trial was a to a of the denial of issue The issue was nor decided Greenwood. never raised application solely jurisdictional one—whether the a “permanently” in defendants who were the statute to unlikely to recover an unconstitutional or was sane government power, be the federal federal exercise of parens patriae power ing the over insane without the Court have. The unable that the states Greenwood, psychiatric evidence that Green to conclude the insanity permanent, grounded federal the wood’s was prosecute authority for on the federal commitment problem speedy federal Nowhere trial crimes. Similarly, v. in United the court States considered. Supp. (D. by 1955), F. 88 Vt. Miller, 131 also cited largely majority, based decision on its the fact Appeals upheld Courts of had two United States constitutionality again, of the federal statute.4 Once on the the attacks statute were not on the however, speedy denial but basis rather question jurisdictional eventually which Greenwood re solved. (S.D. 1961), 111
In
v.
N.W.
Violett,
2d 598
State
upon by
majority,
relied
main
third case
decision
was that
had
basis
defendant
speedy
right
asking
to a
his
waived
incompetency
acquiescing
By
proceeding.
it and
General,
Attorney
4
(10th
1953)
201
;
F.
2d 556
Wells
Cir.
States,
(9th
Higgins
F. 2d
1953).
v. United
Cir.
appellant objected
to the
the instant
contrast,
appointment
case,
sanity
at all
of a
commission and has
ap
theory
desired
tried.
also
times
to be
The waiver
pears
ma
be the basis of the final
cited
case
jority,
2d
United
F.
States ex rel. Thomas v.
Pate,
(7th
1965),
Cir.
86 S.
cert.
The above should not considered sort of an theory. contrary, endorsement of the On waiver procedure requires any I believe that defend (or likely, counsel), more ant, to choose between ineompetency proceedings proce and a trial violates due ss.6 an in Here, did not however, elect competency proceeding and then seek for viola release tion of his to a Nor trial. did he even acquiesce ineompetency proceeding brought by in the *15 Attorney. Appellant the District has maintained his throughout pressed innocence and has at all times a say, trial. It is no to answer the in court did supra, United States v. that a defendant Miller, where capacity properly does not have the mental to assist own his a he not defense, does the ca have fortiori pacity to decide that he wants to stand trial.7 Such 5 Actually, the that there statement no was violation the right speedy constitutional to a trial was at most an alternative holding. grounds court held that the The advanced has been ad prior petition merits, in a that had been vanced decided on the Nonetheless, could not considered. it then and thus be went on and paragraph. trial issue one did consider the brief The Germany only Hudspeth, (10th 15, v. was to F. citation 209 2d 19 denied, 1954), (1954), 946, 347 U.S. 74 Ct. 644 cert. S. the Cir. waiver, possible where defendant case himself initiated clearest ineompetency proceedings. 6 very Foote, Comment excellent Caleb Pre-Trial See Defendants, 832, Criminal 108 U. Pa. L. Rev. 845-6 Commitment of (1960). Robinson, 381, 384, (1966), 383 U.S. 86 v. S. Ct. Pate 7 In 836 contradictory argue . [l]t . “. that stated: de
the Court 218 de although view several factors. ignores First, be incompetent
fendant who is trial not may stand his able to determine best wherein his course, lies if counsel not the same And infirmity. does suffer can the defendant the court appoint refuses counsel, an amicus curiae represent interests.8 defendant’s such view that it Secondly, presumes is always the best interests of defendant9 that be com he mitted if Of mentally incompetent.10 course this if nor would be even defendant were true, guilty crime charged. prison choice between a term and a in an for the possibly lifelong stay institution yet knowingly intelligently fendant incompetent, capacity ‘waive’ bis to have the court determine his stand support trial.” I read Miller in this not as view competent merely saying go defendant can never but as going preclude raising in to trial does later his competeney issue. States, suggestion F. was made in Seidner United This anticipated (D.C. 1958), de
2d 732 where the court Cir. Foote, refuse counsel also Pre-Trial fendant would on remand. See Trial, Incompetency page 845; Note, supra, Commitment, at to Stand 454, L. 81 Harv. Rev. incompetent all defendants to stand The commitment of society’s society necessarily either, even interests should is not upon expense trampling permitted will work its at minority. rights under which unfortunate The statute of this committed, 12, 533, Art. D. Act June P. parallel §§344, 345, III, §§1224, as well as another P.S. §1222, requires showing Act, 50 P.S. the same section *16 enough prerequisite for commitment. It is dangerousness aas “mentally in ill or condition that he re such defendant hospital.” Sending nondangerous persons mental quires in a care criminally hardly redounds to so insane for the institutions ciety’s benefit. Supp. stated, 10 131 F. at sound 94-95: “The Miller Court 4246 4244 and United States Code policy of Sections basic charges against facing they are them when people from protect present.” mentally criminally always insane resolved means favor of the latter.11 grave importantly,
Most the Miller works a view injustice in those instances the defendant is not where guilty charged. of the crime He to an institu- is sent criminally tion for the he has the sword insane, hanging indictment over head the entire his time, proving may means his innocence be irretrieva- bly lost. but Prosecution evidence also be lost, considerably prosecution likely, this is less likely gathering much more have facilities preserving person. evidence than is a committed any prosecution may the fact that the event, some prejudiced way particular cases be in no assures each against prejudice. Certainly defendant cases exist incompetent despite incompe- where an defendant, would not tence, be convicted. One the most fla- grant examples Supp. is United States v. 175 F. Barnes, (S.D. 1959). Cal. The facts in that case were sum- marized in Pre-Trial supra, Foote, at Commitment, page prisoners military 832: “In 1949 four killed prisoner disciplinary fellow a California barracks military were convicted murder mar- court years Supreme tial. Ten later Court sustained the contention defendants’ under section 92 of the Articles military jurisdiction of War that the court had had no over case murder committed within the continental peace, in time of United States [footnote omitted] Thereafter on March 4, 1959, defendants were indicted federal district court. the civil As to three of the relying upon principally defendants, court, United (D. Md.) per F.R.D. [17 Provoo, States aff’d (1955).] granted 350 U.S. curiam, a motion to ground ten-year on the delay, dismiss occa- Note, Incompetency cited in authorities Trial, See Stand supra, at n.16. *17 through but defendants
sioned not the fault of the govern- gambit a result tactical of a calculated right a had amounted to denial of the to ment, against de- trial. the fourth indictment However, was not he was recommitted dismissed; fendant, Coons, Attorney custody had to the of General. Coons brought Springfield, where been to court from Missouri, serving military in had life sentence he been his criminally fact insane. This federal for the institution judge together caused the his conduct court pursuant psychiatric the 1949 order examination governing of mental com- determination federal statute petence exam- After [footnote omitted] to stand ‘presently hearing, was found to be ination and Coons incompetent mentally unable as to be insane and so proceedings against he was him,’ understand Springfield presumably, should he returned to until, ‘participate’ sufficiently dis- in the recovered against him.” man, indictment Here is a missal obviously as Foote laments, convictable, who, procedure forced to a commitment submit process part which will result the criminal criminally finding with the insane. No confinement pointed dangerousness out was made Barnes, nor, finding required in Penn- in footnote is such above, sylvania. this. There even worse cases than are point solely was based of law; Barnes’ defense sanity, he if tried. would freed he ever recovered the defendant who has an de- affirmative But what may depends who on witnesses not be avail- fense finally not remember when he or able who tried? procedure poses pretrial grave commitment
Such furthering system our danger entire what of con- prevent—the safeguards seeks to loss stitutional nondangerous person. innocent, This of an freedom pub- machinery, the hands most conscientious lie assume the which we have official, every doubt District casts Montgomery County Attorney is, upon In the hands efficacy system. our judicial *18 be of to procedure prove the could unscrupulous, this a of the terrible for one instrument It tyranny. institu- glories of our of our system government men them. We greater tions are than the who run keep should strive to it that well-being so that our way, need upon choose hinge the beneficence of we those to serve us. We remain “non sub always must homine, sed sub deo et lege.” the de incompetent view that that an
Finally, says fendant cannot to trial or not choose ivhether stand defective going to a defend assuming trial, ant to com forego any would opportunity challenge his to stand trial. At least one common court petency law has held that the determination of the com defendant’s must be after petency deferred until trial the the where defense to trial on the merits, go wishes to merits.12 Regina v. Roberts, [1953] 2 All E. R. 340 course, competency where issue un Of be deferred til merits, a trial on the there after would to restrain a be little always seeking a trial on the defendant from merits. It is doubt judicial system, by add burden to ful that this would much guilty requiring a trials verdict would of no some be sketchy, appears Although statistics are that cases where effect. incompetent rare, held stand trial and in are defendants are to insanity many those, at the time he committed the defendant’s merits. a defense on the be crime would any Counterbalancing probable added burden would aid competency from the de evidence to the determination States, Pouncey trial. See v. United conduct at actual fendant’s 1965), Note, Incompetency (D.C. to Stand Cir. 2d 699 349 F. competency hearing page Trial, 469. The should follow supra, at reports pre could closely include upon heels of the defendant in order to avoid psychiatric examinations inquiry defendant’s mental condition in problems into by Dusky States, past, illustrated United 362 U.S. distant Ct. 80 S. swearing [1954] Q.B. jury to try court, preliminary Devlin, J., issue postponed com petency (fitness plead) mer to stand trial until cogently “Counsel tried. its were stated: J., Devlin, accept institu [an for the defense cannot he forced to criminally if on tion for the insane] client, opinion can that he true view the he is of the facts, guilty. properly obtain of not for his client verdict Nor can he be to elect. be entitled forced He must rights say ain retain his that the accused is put position cannot him and he instruct therefore story. own the accused tell his the witness-box play say I ‘Shall He cannot forced to himself: safety whereby man is a verdict obtain in effect, or detained as a criminal shall lunatic, I, get my gamble him off on the chance of able to *19 knowledge gamble altogether my fails with the that if my in be convicted of murder.’ . . . There must, he will procedure counsel be which would enable view, points, advantage taking to both the defense have the procedure I think it there were such would necessary to because on the issue invent to insist it, be plead might tried result fitness to [first] injustice detaining grave criminal lunatic as a might quite result innocent; who was a man indeed, person public that a detained in the mischief so would police eyes and of the au be assumed, person responsible have for the been thorities, investigations or was he was not—and crime—whether apprehension might to the have led the true 13 place.” not take would criminal irrelevant 13 [1954] any event, a decision 2 Q.B. 329, 332-33. question based on of added burden on denial of due process. courts is judge, arose later same issue before a different When Bench, Queens J., he refused to allow on a trial on Byrne, appellant I would allow the his constitutional to a trial. by
Dissenting Opinion Mr. Roberts: Justice compelled majority’s I de am to dissent inadmissible termination that would be evidence which appellant against by Miranda v. virtue of at a (1966), Es Ct. Arizona, U.S. 86 S. (1964), v. Illinois, cobedo 84 Ct. 1758 U.S. S. proceeding can the result of nonetheless used appellant against will which is to institutionalize “incompetent I be trial.” also because he is stand compe the Commonwealth cannot force a lieve go tency hearing trial. accused who wishes to Although general incompetency a claim of must be stand trial will come from an here it accused, appellant has continued to resist remembered psychi- try efforts to him. His Commonwealth’s by but raised, atric condition has been him, State v. 52 N.J. the Commonwealth. Cf. Obstein, the Commonwealth now As a result, deprive appellant it can claims that use evidence through not be commitment that could his freedom deprive liberty of his trial on the him at a used to quite It clear then that of the case. should merits majority’s evidentiary that “the restric- statement . . . would unneces- tions advocated diagnosis impede sarily . . which . would be of detri- *20 frequently it as would be a the accused as ment to Appellant illogical. prosecution” is to the detriment merely insane point. See the trial. Of merits, man, relying course, Foote, v.R. who cannot Beynon, as the Pre-Trial a long defend commentators line [1957] Commitment, supra, himself, authority 2 All indicate, E.R. 513 should not to the this misses the (Cardiff effect Note, be forced to that an Incom Ass.), supra. Trial, petency to Stand competency. adjudication
here does not want an would If for he he he would detriment, suffer did, prevent not Miranda or Escobedo claims raise any to introduce the of evidence he use which wanted of such not the Commonwealth’s use object would it favorable evidence event that was unlikely him. claim appellant’s
In the the majority rejects main, that competency hearing because finds Ap- I have thought “criminal would proceeding.” (1967), Ct. 1428 387 U.S. S. plication Gault, 1, simplistic to rest once and for all the put have would proscribed deprivation constitutionally notion that mis- or rather be achieved by could rights labelling, ma- but proceeding “non-criminal,” as labelling, land. still proves ghost here walks jority United Supreme Court of the course, Gault, pro- juvenile held that the characterization States best inter- aimed at the child’s only as ceedings to overcome the realities insufficient ests was involved An of the institution examination situation. between it and striking similarity here reveals held could not be considered institution Gault purposes. for constitutional noncriminal opinion quoting dissenting The Court Gault, Pa. in Holmes’ Appeal, of Mr. Justice Musmanno 2d stated that 109 A. 523, (1954), 616, in “a with whitewashed building placed juvenile .” routine and institutional . hours. . regimented walls, at 1443. Ct. We need not argue at S. 387 U.S. determination that where majority’s Farview, not “equivalent prison” sent, enough to be objectionable it is close find that in Gault and involved Holmes. Staff institutions have only Farview recognized at members routine” are a significant part “bars, guards, *21 claimed have atmosphere institution; they in rehabilitation! helpful factors are that these L. Rev. U. Pa. does as require Court in did not Supreme
The Gault ju- institution to which here that the majority sentence.” prison “tantamount to a veniles were sent charac- the institution had that It was sufficient was Once this present at Farview. that are teristics if just attached as guarantees constitutional case, trial. been the usual there had sug- it is fantasy from sheer apart Gault, Even locked Farview now gest was Appellant proceeding. criminal a result He before indicted for crimes. and charged proceedings instituted competency court which competen- charges. Obviously result of those a direct contem- not at unless there is trial issue to stand cy stand. have to trial which plated a accused rele- and the of crime is type fact of the crime insti- handled once appellant may to the way vant indi- of Farview study For one example, tutionalized. outrage” resulting “public fear cates perhaps hospital influences the staff, acts” “atrocious certain release standards stringent “more creating .” . . public satisfy vengeance. in order patients, (1961). Furthermore, Pa. L. Rev. 78, 110 U. will be spends Farview an individual time which neither “punishment” frequently of as thought press nor will public authorities prosecuting Id. released. the accused is incarceration further 104. at deprived been appellant has
The fact competency result of a as a incarcerated liberty proceeding of a criminal adjunct hearing than com- treated civil differently to be him causes mental health stat- the Commonwealth’s under mittees allowed utes. Under civil committees were prior law, prerelease to readjust through to the outside world available to procedure but was not visits, *22 insane” at Farview. Id. at 86. Under “criminally the Mental Health and Retardation Act of Mental A like striking. distinction is even more person, appellant detained charged who is with a here, crime, in a penal institution and then committed can receive outpatient care court under “conditions as the [to application whom the treatment is di- may made], bail. .” including . . Act of October rect, entry of (Emphasis P. L. 20, 1966, §408, 50 P.S. §4408 added.) under provision there is no contrast, §4406, for court imposition or the of bail imposed conditions persons where under civil commitment are concerned. To conclude that a which results a situation hearing where an individual cannot receive certain mental treatment pro- without bail is not a “criminal” posting unrealistic. ceeding completely It is clear that perfectly appellant sent to an institution that trappings prison. has the of a time he spends potential his there, release, of further incarceration possibility all are influenced held opinion that widely his tenure in in- stitution is at least “punishment.” some extent To receive outpatient he care, may post have to bail, procedure to the criminal unique process. And he has procedure been committed under a which applies only m those who are the criminal process because they I are crime. charged believe that appellant’s hearing was indeed competency part of a “criminal and as a proceeding” result he was entitled to con- protections and stitutional evidentiary rules established and Escobedo. in Miranda appellant’s next
Turning I claim, while am not far Mr. prepared go Justice O’Bbien, who be- require process an due lieves that it is violative of proceedings competency accused to choose between Common- I do not believe that the nonetheless trial, impos- may do it has done this case wealth what against proceedings appellant ing competency his usual is not the will. It must be remembered incom- himself raises his own where an accused case, attempt postpone petency, eliminate or requested but the trial. Here has proceeding competency forced the Commonwealth has on him.
Certainly in the there considerable substance prisoner greatly prejudiced by fear that a engendered by This delay trial his institutionalization. danger main is of course one thrusts requirement. Further- sixth amendment’s *23 in- threat of accused live under the must more, justi- hang him. to over As dictment that continues argues effect Commonwealth in for fication this, appellant’s competency proceeding own is best interests. point I of the com- misses the believe,
This claim, competen- practically petency hearing. all a cases, validity hearing cy an ac- used to test the be will a not stand trial. It is that he should cused’s claim completely ques- sanity hearing, cannot answer the and capable an accused to which is tion of the extent proceeding . claim of trial in- case. “. . [A] with his question ability brings capacity into the accused supply lawyer effectively his and to with to consult charged him to the matter relevant information with Dusky any, in it. v. United involvement, his Rob- 402.” United States ex rel. 362 U.S. States, Yeager, F. 2d 918, erts v. appellant determination that however
Here attorney by own made has been trial could stand pre- spent appellant who has time considerable with paring agree con- a case. Mr. Justice O’Brien’s with I infirmity a defend- clusion whatever ant suffer does not also his counsel, affect competency question, there the court that where is a appoint protect always a an amicus de- can counsel to pre- attorney. I much fendant who refuses an would opinion protected by fer that an accused be appointed attorney, protect or than one him, his own prosecution surprising rather solicitude of the prosecution appel- Allowing the raise in this case. appellant competency deprive right to of his lant’s places in the the Commonwealth an immediate trial opposed appellant, position advocate, position appellant’s masquerad- who can affect appellant’s ing benefactor. opinion, prosecution’s my here actions raise, process problem, general due in addition prosecution taken trial violation. The has position normally
position contrary it to the would charged appellant expected Having to take. with telling it now effect him how conduct crime, continuing to act advocate his defense while appellant charged Once has been Commonwealth. longer it the Commonwealth’s concern crime, supra; cf. State v. Ob stein, he conducts his how grossly to skewer unfair the Commonwealth point potentially one of on the his own per my view cannot be defenses, available *24 process. due our theories of under mitted appellant may dangerous answer that be is no It acquitted society should he be and not institution- ample opportunity appel- There is still to have alized. (commit- civilly §4406 See 50 committed. P.S. lant brought responsible by “any proceeding can be ment government agencies). certain person,” well as Under those he committed circumstances would not be subject to the criminal commitment re- limitations and exactly strictions discussed earlier. This is to what appellant goes should be entitled if he to trial and (If appellant acquitted by not convicted. reason insanity, the new Mental Health Act dictates that any, if under be the civil commitment commitment, procedures §4413.) I 50 P.S. do not believe §4406, stigmatized accused should be criminal as a subjected procedures treating criminally insane when on advice of Ms own he, would counsel, proceed despite willing any infirmity to trial from suffering. which he It is not for Common- wealth to interfere with his desires as to the conduct legal of his affairs.
Accordingly majority’s I dissent deter- competency hearing I mination. Since believe that the impermissible go when wished to I vacate and would remand a trial on the alleged merits offenses. And even were permissible competency hearing under these circum- I that its determination believe here stances, was in- it utilized evidence violation of valid Miranda Escobedo. Appellant, Brady.
Commonwealth,