Commonwealth v. Rightnour

safety requiring that certain and welfare health, met in a non- the number of units standards before building conforming apartment increased. could be indiscriminately City do is forbid cannot What expansion. all natural Zoning Matter remanded to

Order revers'ed. Inspections Department of the Section Licenses opinion. proceedings not inconsistent with this part took in the con- Mr. Justice Bell no Chief sideration or decision of case. by

Dissenting Opinion Mr. Justice Cohen: apart- number of I do not consider an increase non-conforming apartment house to be a ments expansion. zoning Ido Nor feel natural non-conforming provides mul- ordinance which specific tiple dwelling limited to shall be number dwelling presently units contained therein un- applied any property. to this or other constitutional restricting aggravation of a non-con- The ordinance protect forming is enacted moral use health, general neighborhood. safety These welfare majority’s objectives adversely are affected determination. Pomeroy joins dissenting opin- in this

Mr. Justice ion. Rightnour, Appellant.

Commonwealth C. J., 1968. Before Bell, November 25, Argued JJ. O’Brien Roberts, Eagen, Cohen, Jones, re-

reargument 1969. 17, June fused Jr.,

William IT. him Oarl B. Nast, Jr., Stoner, with appellant. for Attorney,

Jerome T. Foerster, Assistant District LeRoy Attorney, with him S. District Zimmerman, appellee. Commonwealth,

Opinion Per 1969: Curiam, May 9, being equally judgment of The Court divided, sentence affirmed. op

Opinion Support Mr. Chief Bell Justice May 1969: 9, Affirmance,

Defendant-appellant was convicted murder imprisonment. degree the first and sentenced life appeal questions On he raises three will be summary discussed after a brief consid facts, ering in the evidence all reasonable must, as we light ferences therefrom the most favorable to Commonwealth: Commonwealth v. 432 Pa. Williams, A. 2d Commonwealth 301; v. 409 Pa. Burns, 557, 2d Commonwealth v. 552; 187 A. 400 Pa. Kravitz, Commonwealth 861; A. 2d 406 Pa. Melton, A. 2d 728. apartment killed his in their wife Defendant Harrisburg, May either after dinner on Boas Street early morning May hours on in the 1966. 14th, 13th having They years, marital for trouble several been had blaming the other. it on Defendant left their each employ- to Phoenix, obtain Arizona, and went home he heard Phoenix, that his wife had While ment. for arrested him desertion. sought have As soon sufficient he funds, returned borrow to Har- could he a attempted and for next weeks several risburg, reconciliation. his went

On the of the defendant night murder, which dinner apartment. They wife’s had together, and problems, discussed their marital she prepared, to bed a Then went upon they reconciliation. agreed and got up intercourse. After she and had sexual that, de Upon she asked drinks. her return, some soft got her and he money gave $40, fendant some bed, and hid. then returned to their took She she he to defendant’s according testimony, whereupon, was reached for a screwdriver which “went He wild.” admitted to their bed and stand next night her he three times with screwdriver—once stabbed near and one rib, superficial her once lung, I love she was she dying said, “Leon, wound. When recall she that he could not when He testified you.” mind “it could have my or whether been own said that, by caused this.” her death was Although me telling tes defendant and stabbing, strangulation he not remember wife strangling does his tified at all.* defendant remembered after picking

The next thing in the standing hallway up the screwdriver dead on the bed. He then wrote wife lying his seeing he loved her and cut his arms in three saying a note that he then returned to bed He testified their places. dead wife. and hugged in the rain at standing recalls corner next

He He Streets, Harrisburg. Foster hailed Third and to the home of him Mr. took Archie Moore, cab which * passing astonishing many tliat it is how murder- noteWe many killing their trial are able remember after ers thoughts circumstances events which aid facts many facts, them, remember ac- circumstances, cannot but guilt. their which evidence events tions and Pennsylvania. lived his who minister, Middletown, He home at approximately arrived at his minister’s Moore 4:30 A.M. on 1966 and told Mr. May called whereupon he had killed his Mr. Moore wife, the police. he

Defendant further at trial testified kill loved his wife much and did not intend to very her. Commonwealth,

Patricia A. for the a witness Metz, her testified that defendant told February, 1965, “One of I kill her victim], these am to days going [the I ap- am to kill her.” further testified that going She two to four weeks before the de- proximately killing I rid fendant said to ... am to going get her, “Pat, of her and make her that no other ever so guy want her.”

Mrs. Marie who is the victim’s Weber, aunt, who had raised her from testified that de- childhood, fendant made to kill month be- just threats his wife a fore the further de- She testified that killing. who at her home in Phoenix fendant, living was “If he stated didn’t from his Arizona, get money he said he her.” was back east and kill wife, going Mrs. Weber and her then took to husband defendant the Catholic Church in Phoenix to attempt to obtain for him return to Harrisburg. When money defend- ant not able to obtain the from money the Catho- then he ‘I’m “. . . said going lic back Church, east ” I’m kill back and her going wife. finish off.’ my that all contends this Defendant evidence was in- verdict of support first-degree sufficient murder. contention is ridiculous. course, Of other two contentions are Defendant’s the trial reversible error when committed he Judge (1) sus- cause challenges made three tained the Assist- (2) Attorney refused to permit District ant psy- state of mind chiatrist to defendant’s testify time death. victim’s for Cause Challenges A prospec 63 prospective jurors and nine jury Appel tive for this case. jurors impaneled alternate lant because granted that a trial contends new should the his dis trial or abused Judge improperly exercised challenges cretion in sustaining Attorney’s the District has of three The Court prospective for cause. jurors in a wide will be reversed cases, discretion such Common for or error of law. only palpable abuse wealth Common v. 282 Pa. 128 Atl. 438, 77; Gelfi, 434, 467; wealth v. Pa. 100 A. 2d 375 McGrew, 526, 518, 736; 2 v. Pa. A. 2d Commonwealth 332 445, Pasco, 439, A. v. 128 387 Pa. Commonwealth Fletcher, 135 2d v. 287 897; Commonwealth Pa. Bentley, 395 rel. v. Atl. Commonwealth ex Fletcher 310; Cavell, A. Pa. 2d 434. 134, 140, her dire examination on voir Wagner’s

Elizabeth notes of The trial testimony. covered six pages has she Court stated: she twice indicated that “Well, for circum- vote a death under penalty any would not The of her on that . sum total testimony stances. . . convince me that would vote for she point doesn’t if the I justified circumstances it. sus- penalty death for cause.” challenge tain of Mrs. for challenge

The Gorniek Commonwealth’s Court. likewise sustained Mrs. Gor- cause was I “Well, said: pertinently said, my religion nick another, I should take man’s life does state I think I do not for therefore, vote and, penalty.” the death challenge Mrs.

The Graeff was Commonwealth’s for cause. Defendant’s sustained attorney likewise

Ill you, “Q. asked: Mrs. do I understand that Gfraeff, response questions, to Mr. indicated Schaffner’s you could not render if cir- a death verdict even any cumstances case? that what warranted Is it, your my A. I answer answer is? believe that’s what would be.” ago,

Until a few months well settled law was Supreme both Court Court juror challenged United States that a could be scruples religious if cause he has conscientious be prevent returning liefs which would him from opinion penalty if death he fixed about the has a guilt. case and the defendant’s Commonwealth Lopinson, 427 Pa. 234 A. 2d Common 552; 284, 296, supra; Bentley, wealth v. Commonwealth v. Pa., supra; Commonwealth v. Gelfi, Pa., Pa., Pasco, supra; Logan v. United How U.S. 298. States, appellant upon Witherspoon relies v. ever, Illinois, Bumper U.S. North 391 U.S. Carolina, drastically changed long which the law established concerning challenges the test for cause and limit opinion juror against it to a ed cases where had a fixed penalty. the death Witherspoon (pages

In v. Illinois, the Court held 522-523) “Specifically, : hold we that a sentence jury imposed if be carried out the death cannot that by excluding it or recommended was chosen veniremen simply they general objections because voiced for cause expressed penalty or to the death conscientious re- scruples against ligious its infliction. No defendant put constitutionally be to death at the hands can . . . so selected. tribunal repeat, nothing say today however,

“We we power upon of a State to the execute a defend bears jury death from only sentenced which ant the in fact were excluded for who cause veniremen were they clear (1) those who made unmistakably imposition vote would automatically against evidence capital punishment without regard any trial of the before developed be case might pen death (2) that their attitude toward the them, impartial them an making from alty prevent decision as to the defendant’s Nor does guilt* affect sentence validity decision this case any today’s other than one of death. does finally, Nor, conviction, opposed render invalid the holding as other case.” sentence, (Italics any Opinion.) original

In Bumper v. North supra, Carolina, U.S., to- Witherspoon “In decided Court said: v. Illinois, con- held that a death sentence cannot we have day, from executed if stitutionally imposed by a jury without have been excluded for cause those who, con- capital are or have opposed punishment more, the death scruples against imposing penalty. scientious Witherspoon pres- not govern Our decision does here the recommended a sen- jury ent because case, life imprisonment.” tence of in the

We believe there was no abuse discretion prospective on these three Judge’s ruling jurors, trial it prejudicial if there or re- but was error, Witherspoon since and Bumper apply versible error, well as where prospective) to cases only (retroactive imposed was or sentence death. penalty * Black, dissenting, (pages 538-539) said “Final- : Mr. Justice holding point ly, is, out that the real at want to this case I me, very ambiguous. . . For I opinion, . read the the to least upon they asking requirement placed that the States is cease new they jurors religious prospective have whether ‘conscientious penalty,’ against death scruples infliction the the but instead automatically against imposition ‘they vote would the whether ask any regard punishment might without capital that evidence ” developed trial of the them.’ case before at the Testimony

Psychiatric testimony, his At the conclusion of defendant’s Dr. he next counsel announced that witness g. Harry point, the Whiting, psychiatrist. At this proof requested Attorney “on the an offer District testimony submit the doctor will evidence that Whiting replied: “Dr. make.” Counsel defendant testify of mind at the the defendant’s state as to will the time he took the life of his the time wife, at anything you fur- death of his The Court: Have wife. I At not? . . do.” ther to add to that offer or . Yes, Attorney point, like “We would the District said, urge find the evi- the Court first out whether give to establish doctor will tend dence will crime insane that the defendant the time was gupreme Pennsylvania Court under the rules of M’Naghten commonly Rule. called the and this Court, gtoner? your Mr. that, Court: answer to The What gtoner: specifically, More what Mr. no. The Court: No, gtoner: you not defendant do mean? Mr. was No, Whiting M’Naghten will tes- Rule. Dr. under M’Nagh- tify insane under the was the defendant ten Rule.” objection to the offer of this

The Commonwealth’s Judge, testimony we sustained trial was ruling. agree Court’s with the opposed frankly that he is to the states

Defendant frankly M’Naghten that the admits decision Rule, prior in accord with recent of the lower Court urges Court. He therefore of this us to over- decisions v. Pa. A. 2d Phelan, Commonwealth rule 421 Pa. 2d Ahearn, Commonwealth 218 A. 540; recent decisions of other this Court. This contrary, but, reaffirm do, the law decline we therein. forth set

114

In Commonwealth v. 427 supra, Phelan, Pa., Opinion by an Justice Court, joined Eagen, Chief Justice Justice Justice Jones Bell, Musmanno, “During Justice said :* (pages 278-279) and O’Brien, to determine the hearing degree guilt,** court refused to admit to medical tending testimony the time establish at of the commission of the Phelan crimes lacked the mental to ability form intent to a kill, necessary ingredient degree of first and lacked murder, substantial to conform his capacity conduct to the requirements of law. This was error. See Commonwealth v. 421 Pa. 218 Ahearn, 311, A. 2d 561 (1966), Woodhouse, Commonwealth v. 401 Pa. 164 A. 2d (1960). 98 As stated in Com 242, monwealth v. Ahearn, 568, 218 A. 2d at supra, such evidence is not admissible to or ex £(1) absolve culpate and a acquit defendant of (2) crime, prove lack intent specific pro kill, thereby hibit a verdict of murder of the first degree.’ also, See Commonwealth v. 412 Pa. 194 A. 2d 911 Carroll, (1963). Moreover, testimony re properly ceived evidence and considered by the court miti gation the penalty during the determine hearing the sentences to imposed.”

In Commonwealth v. Ahearn, Pa., supra, Court more (pp. said fully 324-325) : “We hold the psychiatric offered in testimony this case is not to absolve or (1) exculpate admissible acquit defendant of or (2) to crime, prove a lack of specific intent prohibit kill, thereby a verdict of mur degree. der the first This has always been the law of Pennsylvania. Commonwealth v. Tyrrell, Pa., supra. We further hold that [particularly] since the

* Cohen and Roberts Justices dissented. ** ours, throughout, Italics unless otherwise noted. §4701, L. P.S. Act of December P. 1, 1959, unless Verdict Split as the (popularly Act), known purpose introduced for the psychiatric testimony is it (a) the M’Naghten under showing insanity Rule, a been determined by has only guilt admissible after and there (b) or and is relevant admissible jury Court, the jury the limited only purpose aiding after of or Court This wise penalty.” especially the is fixing of 1959. Split since the Verdict Act all answer following The aforesaid and the cases appellant theories advanced the by the contentions and and of this Court. by minority 2d

In v. Pa. 178 A. Commonwealth Melton, or rejected doctrine again this Court (1962), of of schizophrenic psycho- and other kinds theories paths of or or dimin- and moronic deficient mentality 349- said pertinently (pages ished responsibility, contention third last 350) : “Defendant’s Court of deficient the lower (a) mentality because his find a of power plea guilty] did not have the [after of of degree penalty him first murder with guilty power abused or if it had the to so it (b) death, find, death imposing its discretion penalty. merit to

“There is not the remotest defendant’s con- tention that because of deficient mentality, power did not to convict him of mur- Court have der in the first degree. 405 Pa.

“In Commonwealth we sus- Smith, of murder guilty degree verdict the first tained a even a though defendant was penalty death, with there said We one concur- psychopath. sexual [with : 459-460) no Court (pages ‘This rence dissents] degree first murder with a verdict sustained has defendant ir- of death where had an allegedly penalty moron or a was a mental defective impulse, resistible or or pervert psychopathic or sexual personality, had been for the hospital confined previously schizophrenic criminal insane for 14 awas years, an psychopath mentally was defective mo- unstable, prior feeble-minded: ron, [citing decisions ” . . .’ Court.] In Commonwealth v. 405 Pa. 174 A. Tyrrell, after a plea guilty 2d 852, where, murder, in a unanimous Chief Court, Opinion, by Justice Bell, : (pages 219-220) said

“Defendant’s evidence and psychiatric

applicable Law coun- “The Court on of defendant’s petition lower con- sel ordered an mental into the defendant’s inquiry Iobst, dition W. qualified two Charles psychiatrists, C. M.D. examined John Dr. Iobst M.D., Lychak, ex- the defendant on Dr. Lychak and May 23, 1960, him re- amined 1960. written May Although 31, ports were submitted to the Court and to defendant’s testify. neither of these doctors was called to counsel, Coleman, Instead the defendant called Dr. Donald K. September who had examined the defendant on 18, nine 1960, days before first of trial. Dr. Cole- day man that defendant simple testified fell into the impairment is an in the type schizophrenia, not in the emotional life but intellectual life. He de- his examination as watching scribed ‘Listening him, his mannerisms, watching his his no sense affect, he described when connected with feeling anything or his behavior, running pattern. love death, away clear. He . . . was showed thinking His no signs It was all impairment. intellect the emotional . . .’ state. Dr. Coleman a result determined

“As that the de since teen psychotic was and age* fendant that he was ours. *Italics, upset

so on March would emotionally that ‘he 7, 1960, react to an impulse pick up loaded rest- shotgun at his elbow fire that ing it at his wife, time he had no intent to take life.’ his wife’s

“The doctrine of or in the impulse’ ‘irresistible modern control psychiatric vernacular ‘inability one’s whether used to denote self’, legal insanity, escape as a device to one’s responsibility criminal for acts to reduce the crime or its always has degree, rejected been In v. Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Pa. 2d Chief Justice 67 A. Mr. Neill, 507, 276, in ‘Apart from the fact “confusional said: Stern antiquated an discarded sanity” apparently proposition and that could be theory there such a thing momentary insanity sharply expert an witness Common challenged it seem defendant’s quite obvious that wealth, to differentiate between a mere tem witness failed emotional and insanity porary frenzy excitation, of that inabili legal meaning within term, namely the mind* disease the na ty, understand from of the act and to ture and between quality distinguish respect with to it: right wrong Commonwealth v. Pa. 154 A. 410, 416, 485; Szachewicz, 325 Pa. Lockard, Commonwealth A. 56, 60, neither social nor Certainly . . maladjustment, 757. * nor self-control, nor lack impulsiveness, psycho nor nor emotional ma instability, chronic neurosis, conditions of such nor all constitute combined, laria, criminal-law conception the within of that insanity ” term.’ v. a Woodhouse, In Commonwealth Pa., supra, of murdering convicted sixteen-year- defendant and the jury fixed daughter the adopted penalty old While the defense was imprisonment. life insanity, Tyrrell * Opinion, in Commonwealth Italics many psychiatric tests Court reviewed different the years rejected and had over the which been advanced M’Naghtén again' Rule. reaffirmed and them, once .the per respect, M’Naghten Court Rule, With 258-259) tinently (pages : other “Until some rule, said ‘M’Naghten,’ in scien firm foundation than based on operation protection and fact for tific effective security society, forthcoming, shall adhere of we - opinion psy blindly it. not We shall follow the legal experts for substitute and medical and chiatric proven practicable principle has durable which vague provide positive standar rules no decades, ds."* supra, In Commonwealth v. Carroll, Pa., “ 587) society pertinently (page : ‘. : said .

Court unprotected completely criminals be almost from if impulse in permitted or irresistible or a blind law justify ability a mur to control one’s excuse self, deg degree it to second der or to reduce first from * living nearly In which we are the times ree.* being every or hours has moments normal adult human depressed periods longer days he or she is when feelings upset emotional With resultant disturbed especially Impulses; young blind and so-called every day many are uncontrolled emotions have impulses. euphemistically irresistible The Courts called duty not their abdicate should Justice function responsibility determinmg psychiat criminal to the only test differ the. will with event, In such rist.** prevailing psychi psychiatrist with the but also each “ Only moment.*** ‘. . . a short atric winds * Italics, ours.

** Opinion. v. Carroll in Commonwealth Italics minority’s quotations *** Notwithstanding psy- from some reviews, is, repeat, in law school it I articles and some chiatrists knowledge psychiatric have common theories a matter

119 time ago coneept irresistible em impulse] [of phatically presented example as an of the “uniform” of opinion psychiatrists on criminal and responsibility; yet impulse” “irresistible today, rejected is most psychiatrists as unsound. . . .’*** Hall, [Professor] and ‘Psychiatry Criminal 65 Yale L. J. Responsibility’, 762 (1956);" State of New 30 Jersey Lucas, N.J. A. 2d 50.’

“Just as the Courts cannot psy- abdicate chiatrists the task of determining responsi- criminal in bility so also law, they cannot remit to psychiatrists right determine the intent or the of mind state of an accused at the time of the commission of a homi- cide.”

We reaffirm again our prior decisions (1) M’Naghten Rule governs the and issue in- question and sanity (2) that testimony by psychiatrists or psy- or chologists others that defendant was for incapable one or more psychiatric or psychological reasons form specific intent to kill (a) is inadmissible question of guilt but (b) admissible on the subject or issue penalty sentence. To hold otherwise would not circumvent only and nullify the M’Naghten Rule but in turn practical over to psy- effect the determination of chiatrists whether the accused was be of murder in guilty could the first and degree Justice. thereby jeopardize

In the light psychiatric in testimony behalf of the defendant numerous murder cases—see es- testimony such pecially Commonwealth v. Ahearn, Commonwealth v. Pa., supra, Tyrrell, supra—the safety law-abiding Pa., citizens would endangered and the greatly be further convictions of many years widely constantly changing are varied uncertainty, today state are even conflict flux. substantially dangerous if reduced, criminals would prove psychiatric testimony lack admissible were incapacity kill. to form an intent to any I in of defendant’s contentions find no merit judgment and I of sentence. would affirm the join in Eagen Mr. Mr. Justice Justice O’Bbien opinion. by Dissenting Opinion Mr: Roberts: Justice patients leeches with “If bleed a doctor were to insanity psychiatrist today, or if were to attribute cry be tremendous. to the the hue moon, pointed may yet out And instance after instance for hundreds has sometimes remained, wherein the law changes despite curiously rigid, years, in scien of Many opinion upon the law was based. tific which early by in criminal law are still affected rules concerning psychology, out which views are now views through repudiated by ex discoveries moded or newer utterly perimentation. large A number fail take to. cognizance in advances education educational of Aspects Woodbridge, of Some Unusual methods.” Irresponsibility J. Criminal 29 Mental Law, (cid:127) quoted Criminology (1938-39), & 822 Crim. Law Insanity Affecting Degree Taylor, Partial Commentary Fisher v. United 34 States, Crime—A (1946). thirty years In the have L. 625 Cal. Rev. foregoing quote psychi passed was' written, since greatly knowledge has further factor increased, atric judicial practically subsequent all recognized deci Plying in the of this and commentaries. face sions decision this Court in 4-3 Commonwealth is the trend A. (1966), Pa. 218 2d 421 561 Ahearn, upon opinion Mr. Chief Justice Bell’s relied compelled I am us. before thus now to dis ease sent from the opinion in favor of affirmance here, to reinforce my dissenting views in Ahearn.1

The decision in Ahearn produced has only criticism, see 28 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 679 (1967) ; 71 Dick. L. Rev. just as (1966), other only near-contemporary decision to the Ahearn adhering Fisher rule, v. United 149 F. States, 2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1945), U.S. aff'd, 66 S. Ct. 1318 (1946) (affirmance did not reach merits in issue)2 rule was met with apparently unanimous disfavor. See A Problem of First Keedy, Degree Murder: Fisher v. United L. U. Pa. States, Rev. 267 (1950); Weihofen and Mental Overholser, Disorder Affecting the Degree 56 Yale L.J. Crime, 959 (1947); Partial Taylor, Insanity as Affecting Degree Crime—A on Fisher Commentary v. United 34 Cal. L. States, Rev. 625 (1946). Supreme The Courts of California and New two Jersey, states which apparently followed a rule similar in that Ahearn at the time of the Fisher see Weihofen decision, supra at Overholser, have 965, subsequently unanimous repudiated ly their old law and now allow the admis sion of evidence of “diminished responsibility.” See State v. 34 DiPaolo, N.J. 168 A. 2d 401 279, (1961); v. People 33 Cal. 2d Wells, 202 P. 2d 330, 53 (1949) (dissents on other followed in grounds), Hen People v. 35 Cal. Rptr. 386 P. 2d derson, 677 77, (1963) v. People 51 Cal. 2d Gorshen, 336 P. 2d 492 (1959). 1 joined in this Justice writer’s dissent. Justice Cohen Jones dissenting opinion. filed a also 2 Supreme Court affirmed because it The believed it should development insanity the common law not interfere with of rules way Columbia, in but no in the District affirmed the rule on Appeals The merits. Court District Columbia implied subsequently it would has not have allowed Circuit replaced M’Naghten it not had to stand Fisher Eule with the progressive Durham test. See Stewart States, v. United more 214 1954). (D.C. Cir. 2d 879 F. (D.C. Stewart v. United 214 F. 2d 879 States, See also of the bastion 1954). Cir. Even Great Britain, birthplace M’Naghten Rule, common of the law prac Scotch brought has been line with the law Century, been since the 19th evolving tice which has Rev. and di (1967), Pitt. L. 685 n.33 see 28 U. in homicide responsibility cognizable minished is now & 6 Eliz. II, Homicide English Act, cases. R. 182 ; App. Cr. §2(1) Regina Dunbar, see c.11, the same trend. legal thought Irish evidences (1957). Criminals and O’Doherty, Men, Responsibility, See 285 (1966). Irish Jurist Penal Model developments paralleled by are

These official draft which Code §4.02(1) (proposed 1962), the defendant suffered that: “Evidence provides is whenever disease defect admissible from a mental the defendant did did prove it is relevant of- an element of mind is have a state which All to me that the dissenters proves fense.” rath- but Ahearn voices hardly wilderness, were is unani- clearly apparently represent quite er what those legal while enlightened thinkers, mous position firm today the affirmance stand with feet support who out desperately tightly clenched, holding teeth 20th Century. the advent against position advanced in Chief In Mr. view, my opinion must be least in part, based, Justice Bell’s person wholly that a sane wholly belief on the “is now abandoned based position insane, supra untruth.” It 629. Taylor, psychological on not even is writ freshly abandoned; that position ais Taylor Professor was able to quote the in ing earlier: twenty-three years “To con written following, either is responsi individual absolutely an that ceive irresponsible is to in the absolutely fly face of ble that are in facts everybody’s patent indi perfectly vidual experience comparable is only to such be liefs of the Middle person that a is Ages possessed a devil or is not possessed of a and therefore is devil, or is not a free moral agent.” White, Insanity Criminal Law 89 Yet (1923). that by holding appel lant must be insane within (wholly) M’Naghten, we will not consider his mental state on bearing criminal the other responsibility, opinion here has re inforced exactly that medieval and “abandoned” theory and has turned its back on years of psychiatric prog ress. See State v. 256 Iowa Gramenz, 140-41, 126 N.W. 2d (1964).

Nor do I in find the least bit tenable Mr. Chief Justice Bell’s here in argument, Ahearn, psychiatric testimony so inherently unreliable that it cannot be utilized in cases of type. The most obvious answer this is that psychiatric evidence is no less reliable here than it is when used to make the initial M’Naghten determination. See State Di- 71 Dick. Paolo, supra; L. Rev. at 113 also (relying the fact that psychiatric evidence has been legislative- ly determined this Commonwealth to relevant sentence under 18 setting P.S. §4701). I cannot

Regardless, accept the proposition that psychiatric testimony suffers from an incurable relia problem. I do not think bility it is necessary argue will psychiatric testimony always be absolutely accurate order to reach this conclusion. Psychiatry is a that is inherently science less exact than chemistry but that hardly physics, means that psychiatrists more than nothing guesswork. engage Additionally, there is say it is safe growing appreciation psychiatrists difficulties among involved in giv courtroom testimony, useful ing attempts are be develop procedure made to by which ing psychiatric more be even useful can testimony the trier of facts. 124 Why Psychiatrists e.g., Like Do Not

See, Guttmacher, Menninger Testify Clinic 20 Bull. of The Court, (1956). 306 frequent testimony psychiatric fact must The that ly by him made the defendant be based on statements opinion. exaggerated by There is the Ahearn self also appears psychiatric evidence “the to be substantial expose lie—they truth with alarm do not the insane Psychiatric ing Telling, Ex candor.” Truth Roche, Impeachment pert Testimony and the Witnesses, psychiatrist (1951). Although B.Q. Pa. any falsity may be the truth or not able establish really given not rather he aim; this is statement, to “evaluate the whole of the individual’s is trained standpoint.” processes He is mental from clinical “ suggestibility capable identifying and un The thus intellectually reliability de defective and the and of the the hallucinations the delusions mented, irresponsibility psy psychotic, of the true [and] expert chopath’ and from his conclusions he renders his quoting opinion.” L. Pitt. Rev. at Gutt U. Psychiatry Law 365 Weihofen, macher (1952).

Ultimately be it must remembered that final de- psychiatrist by testifying made be cision will may There of facts. the trier well conflict- but testimony, psychiatric ing but this does not mean testimony necessarily psychiatric is unreliable since lawyers—can legitimate psychiatrists—like have dis- agreements. psychiatric testimony, point if con even is

The should flicting, be available relevant for the con is trier of facts. “If the mental state sideration given crime is requisite absent, to a crime has not To what cause absence of such committed. been attributed to be would seem immate state mental supra rial.” Weihofen This at 962. Overholser, is of course the rule that Court followed has McCausland, intoxication cases. Commonwealth See, e.g., 8 Pa. 35 A. It seems (1944). 2d 70 275, 34 almost incredible a rule that Court can adhere to that who some gives have presumably may intoxicants, control over their cf. Powell condition, Texas, U.S. 88 S. Ct. 2145 evidence the use of 514, (1968), that is denied to the who are mentally certainly ill, not for responsible their deficiencies. Dick. L. See 71 Rev. 111; 290; at Weihofen and at supra Overholser, supra at 635. de Taylor, states mind such as “[I]f liberation or premeditation signifi are accorded legal when cance, psychiatric evidence should admissible prove relevant to the disprove or their to existence same extent as other A.L.I. any relevant evidence.” Model Penal comment Of §4.02(1), (Proposed Code, ficial State Draft, 1962). supra. See v. DiPaolo,

One final comment is in order. It has been argued that allowing “diminished to responsibility” testimony reduce the of crime will in degree result shorter sen- and hence freedom for per- tences earlier dangerous proposed require sons. One solution is to the jury verdict not return a guilty higher offense of the defendant’s mental by reasons under disorder, the trial order judge which verdict could confinement supra Weihofen and care. at The Overholser, 981. Mental Health Pennsylvania new and Mental Retarda- ofAct October (Spec. tion P. Sess.) L. Act, et 50 P.S. seq., seq., et became effec- §101 §4101 in the decision of this Court tive Ahearn and was after in deciding provides thus not available case, that: person any Whenever charged “§4413(a) with any ground acquitted crime is or insanity having he the time committed insane been crime, the case court as may shall be, or the state such jury verdict, In such event, reason for in its acquittal (b) Common- direct for the may Attorney court pro- act commitment petitioner wealth to initiate P.S. 406.” under section Section ceedings procedure commitment is the Act’s civil §4406, governmen- inter an officer or of a alia, agent allows, “any or welfare organization agency tal health to commit petition responsible person” bring in person need of care. Thus while we any applicable need to decide this case whether §4413 un- case, is clear responsibility to a diminished it option der the Commonwealth will have the §4406, it consid- whom keep any person confined moving to be ers whom it considers merely dangerous, order opinion care. support need of The protec- completely wrong then is arguing fur- of tion and citizens would safety law-abiding of dan- and ther the convictions greatly jeopardized if testi- reduced substantially criminals gerous is acquittal admissible. Total question were mony that is by not all of course here; governed at issue at is without doubt ad- and the M’Naghten, testimony of if because And a shorter sentence results missible. Mental Health higher of a offense, an acquittal a the Common- provides simple Act mechanism dangerous confined still individual. keep to a wealth Menn Dr. Karl suggested It has been recently of of safety a cause the “lack significant inger3 of psy citizens” is the failure law and law-abiding of communicate and valid to create properly chiatry unquestioned psychiatric qualifications to and In addition Menninger achievements, Project a member of the on Dr. Mental Association, Bar Law of the American for and Health Special Insanity merly on on the Commission and Criminal served of California and on State Committee on Offenders Psychiatry Psychiatric of Legal Aspects the American Associa tion.

standards conduct and A responsibility. society develops fixation punishment revenge a no may do better than innocent citizens protecting ones: ask—the dealing “guilty” you with “But may man was unpredictable— dangerous, immoral, ruthless, not eliminate him? why

“For the reasons that one of- .... Eliminating fender happens who to get public weakens se- caught false curity by creating sense of diminished danger a through a definite remedial measure. it does Actually, remedy it anything, bypasses completely the real problem and unsolved to detect, how identify, and detain dangerous criminals. potentially kind of

“What creature And was this anyway? how did he get way? gave him wild What and fearful idea? What was most he afraid of? What him burning inside? What might have deterred him? .... How do patterns thought and action such as this and how can the rest of get started, become us in time prevent alerted such tragedies?

“We never know the will answers questions these were in because we such hurry get this wretch dis- if our posed he were social of, only and the menace, that ever would be born only one who would do such can thing. We wish but ghastly that, we know bet- The Crime ter.” Menninger, Punishment 108-09 in original.). (1968) (Emphasis I

For the reasons continue foregoing dissent appellant new trial. grant Jones joins Mr. Justice this dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Rightnour

Court Name: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: May 9, 1969

Citation: 253 A.2d 644

Docket Number: Appeal, 28

Court Abbreviation: Pa.