Commonwealth v. Webster
539 A.2d 804
Pa.
1988
Check Treatment

*1 578 The is also entitled counsel. 50 P.S. 7304.3 patient

the § us is of these any proceed before whether question broad this the statute is ings open public. point are the On is a matter left they public hearings clear that whether patient step Each under the counsel. entirely the discretion of court governed statute is the the request alleged the opening hearings the but 7304(e)(4)provides: In this Section patient. regard requested it is hearing public shall be unless [T]he private by the or his counsel. person be added).4 7304(e)(4)(emphasis 50 P.S. § deeply the court are hearing personal, issues before the properly for which the left disclosure to legislature reason, beyond person’s There is no person involved. why public should be invited sit beside request, own their and overhear their physicians. bed

I dissent. A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellee,

COMMONWEALTH WEBSTER, Appellant. Douglas K. Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Sept. 1987. Submitted 30, 1988. Decided March 3. Id. (e)(4) apply day is intended to to 90

4. I realize that subsection legislature’s can hearings. import clear scheme right patient’s gleaned to dictate be from the inclusion of Surely, procedures. privacy this most formal of three extent of hearing public public this patient can latter if exclude hearings. greater rights informal at the more intimate would have no *2 Corbett, Jr., John H. Div., Appellate Office of the Chief— Defender, Public Pittsburgh, for appellant. Eberhardt, Colville, Dep- L. E. Dist. Robert Atty.,

Robert Clark, Pittsburgh, M. for appellee. Dist. Edward uty Atty., LARSEN, FLAHERTY, C.J., NIX, Before and zappala jj. papadakos, McDermott, and OF THE COURT

OPINION PAPADAKOS, Justice. from December appeal by

This is allowance affirming judgments order of the Court of Common Pleas imposed by of sentence Webster, was con- Appellant, Douglas Allegheny County. two degree1 murder the first victed Act.2 Firearms The convictions the Uniform violations *3 5, April on shooting from incident which occurred resulted a Fol- 1983, Gwendolyn and the death of Jones. resulted motions, was post-verdict Appellant the denial of his lowing the murder conviction imprisonment to life on sentenced (2V2) of one-half to five sentences two and and concurrent Represented new (5) for each firearm violation. years counsel, filed an Appellant appeal Superior error and ineffectiveness raising various claims trial judg- The Court affirmed his trial counsel. unreported opinion.3 in an memorandum ments sentence ap- for allowance of petitioned then this Court Appellant We now reverse the order granted. which peal, was Superior Court. a of issues Appellant this raises number appeal,

On court’s on which are: v/hether the trial comments among invaded the expertise province of the defense witness Appellant and of a fair trial and whether deprived the defense expert failure to address the court’s 2501(a). § 1. 18 Pa.C.S. Pa.C.S. and 6106.

2. 18 §§ Webster, (1985) Pa.Super. 506 A.2d 1339 Commonwealth v. 3. opinion). (unreported memorandum prejudiced title proper appellant.4 prior The record reveals that to the incident in question, former Appellant, policeman, a state had filed criminal victim, Jones, charges against Gwendolyn and boy- her friend, Robin Ford. The to a charges related burglary A hearing residence. Appellant’s preliminary had been morning scheduled for the of April before District Lloyd. Justice arrived at the Betty Appellant magistrates’ morning office that and had police conversations with offi- appeared cer Fantaski and clear and coherent. While in the office, magistrate’s Appellant, warning, approached without said, you need,” gun Ms. Jones and is what aimed a “[t]his at her fatally Appellant head and shot her. was immediate- ly Later, searched and a knife his possession. was found in questioned, that, when Appellant having stated been officer, he police was aware of his constitutional rights. Nevertheless, his warnings Miranda were read to him and thereafter he freely gave statement which he admitted the shooting. eyewitnesses gave Several testimony that Appellant acted and normally during was calm and rational period. Appellant this rights was rewarned of his prior giving a recorded statement. that, record clear shooting, the time of the

Appellant acted calm normally was and rational. The testimony of the officers interrogating Appellant was that calm, coherent, cooperative, signs and without of men- problems tal or physical at the he gave time initial *4 gave statements and the time he his recorded statement. We focus upon Appellant’s contention that he de- was prived of a fair trial of because the trial court’s improper challenge witness, expertise of a crucial defense invading thereby province of jury, and because failure to judge’s expert address such witness title. The issue proper central at trial concerned the mental trial, disposition appeal remanding 4. In view of our of this for new it unnecessary remaining for us to consider the issues raised Appellant. as viewed shooting at the time of the capacity Appellant and prosecution. Ap- for the defense witnesses by expert Eberle, Ph.D., a clinical and foren- M. called Thomas pellant as diagnosed Appellant stated that he who psychologist, sic chronic, in a paranoid variety, suffering schizophrenia, from He testified obsessive-compulsive personality. somewhat had no evidence I.Q. and bright-normal had a Appellant that Appel- he concluded that abnormality. organic (N.T. the shooting. at the time of legally lant insane was 171, 172). Coleman, M.D., a called Donald J.

The Commonwealth He also con- neurologist psychiatrist. and certified board schizophrenic from illness suffers Appellant cluded that that opinion Dr. was of the chronic. Coleman type paranoid he of his act and that consequences knew the Appellant Appellant the act and that planning certainly capable 277-286). (N.T. wrong. it knew was Melvin P. expert, called a second The Commonwealth who Melnick, M.D., psychiatrist, certified also board Dr. He was of diagnosis Coleman. agreed with of his quality the nature and that knew opinion Appellant wrongfulness and consequences and understood the act diagno- He the differences between explained thereof. and that of Dr. Eberle. sis which oc- following exchange points

Appellant witness, Dr. Thomas expert the defense’s curred between examination, as direct Eberle, during the trial judge, and a new trial: requiring and unfairly prejudicial and with Eberle, professional opinion Dr. Q. your background, you educational your experience is called familiar with what obviously Rule? M’Naughton

A. Yes. to whether or opinion as to form

Q. you Were able 5, 1982 was function- April on Douglas Webster M’Naughton— ing under

583 to proper THE COURT: That is not ask this witness. He capable rendering M’Naughton— is not is, Yes, MR. he Your Honor— BOTULA: Well,

THE we have other witnesses COURT: who are more qualified—

MR. He is perfectly competent testify BOTULA: that, Your Honor.

THE Okay, COURT: there will be other witnesses who are testify qualified. will who more (N.T. 173, 74).

A trial should act judge with absolute impartiality. 1, 474 Pa. 375 England, Commonwealth A.2d 1292 (1977). “Judges should refrain from extended examination witnesses; not they during should the trial indicate merits, opinion on the a doubt as witnesses’ credibili or ty, anything to do to indicate a or leaning to one side other without explaining to the that all these matters (Citations omitted.) for them.” Commonwealth v. 38, Seabrook, 475 379 (1977). Pa. A.2d 567 How ever, in as we stated 450 Commonwealth v. Pa. Goosby, 609, 611, (1973): A.2d

Every unwise or irrelevant in remark made the course of a trial aby judge, does not compel granting of a new trial. A required new trial when remark is is, prejudicial; that when it is a such nature or substance or delivered such a it manner that may reasonably be said to deprived have defendant of (Citations omitted.) impartial (Empha- trial. fair sis original.)

While the statements judge trial were concededly improper, our inquiry upon must focus question they whether of a deprived Appellant impartial fair and trial. Court’s that holding the remarks made judge prejudicial were not to the Appellant was as, upon based rationale that the testifying witness was sanity and he is doctor psychology and a medical *6 in the field of as were the psychiatry, doctor is certified who that Superior Court reasoned the experts. Commonwealth court, perhaps spontaneously, simply trial a bit too was that an expert the traditional view when testifies expressing See, commonly it is respect sanity psychiatrist. to with Woodhouse, v. 401 Pa. 164 A.2d 98 Commonwealth (1960). explained by this nuance was never the the jury. jury clearly given trial was judge Dr. impression psychologist that because Eberle was his testimony deserving rather than a was psychiatrist, the weight testimony psychiatrists. the same as the of of question qualification While the of a witness to is one for the discretion of the express expert opinion an ruling trial whose thereon will not be reversed ab judge, course, discretion, his of is for credibility, sent an abuse Mangini, Commonwealth pass upon. the 478 Pa. jury Bennett, Commonwealth v. (1978); 386 A.2d 482 (1977). case, upon 370 A.2d 373 In the instant Pa. appointed by Dr. Eberle was request Appellant, court, in his by judge questioned qualifi fact same who under this was opinion M’Naughton; cations to render appointed. for which he The trial very purpose was challenge qualifications did not at the time judge him an expert. nor when the defense called as appointment challenged qualifications The Commonwealth neither Eberle, to his We think that objected testimony. Dr. nor judge qualifications held as to his any reservations time of or expressed appointment, should have been at the at trial. being permitted testify to his prior trial, his extensive pro- At after Dr. Eberle first recited a clinical and forensic qualifications psycholo- fessional as mental state proceeded Appellant’s he then to review gist, testified, the court. He next unchal- challenge by without court, for Appellant that met criteria lenged by asked Dr. only It was when counsel legal insanity. Appellant’s regard to address mental state with Eberle challenged qualifications that the court M’Naughton, render such an opinion. Although Dr. Eberle permit- give ted to his opinion under M’Naughton, court, and the its charge reiterated Dr. qualifications Eberle’s to the jury and emphasized that it was for the alone to jury decide whether to or accept reject the expert testimony, we believe these cautionary instructions could not have reaffirmed the jury’s role in determining credibility, thereby minimizing impact statements made by the court. The judge had already told the that Dr. Eberle qualified was not as the field as the Commonwealth experts. He misled the jury to the prejudice of the Appellant. The prejudicial effect was emphasized the fact that the court did not refer to *7 Appellant’s expert as “Doctor” in its charge. Although the charge indicated that the witness was a psychologist and a professional whose credibility was to be determined solely jury, cumulative effect of the court’s challenge to the expert’s qualifications and failure to address the expert by his earned title in the charge clearly left the with jury impression that Dr. opinion Eberle’s was not as reliable as the Commonwealth’s experts’. This was extremely prej- udicial to the Appellant, since his sole defense was one of His insanity. actions in killing the victim were undisputed and he no pled justification other than his purported delu- sions. His entire defense consisted of his own testimony, and the psychiatric witness, testimony expert which was denigrated by the judge’s expressed opinion that Dr. Eberle was not as qualified as the Commonwealth witness- es. Appellant was entitled to fair to opportunity present his defense of insanity jury without the trial judge usurping province of the to determine the credibili- ty of the record, witnesses. On this we do not believe that Appellant had such an opportunity, consequently, he is entitled to a new trial. we

Accordingly, reverse the order of affirming the judgment sentence and remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny for a County new trial.

586

HUTCHINSON, J., participate Former did consideration or decision of this case. J.,

McDERMOTT, dissenting opinion files a in which FLAHERTY, J., joins. Justice,

McDERMOTT, dissenting. 16, Zettlemoyer, Commonwealth In 500 Pa. 454 A.2d “the (1982), testimony this Court noted that of [a] that of the medically psychiatrist preferable trained to has no education in medicine.” psychologist who received Id,., 947 n. 500 Pa. at 35 n. 454 A.2d at 8. We further to competence psychologist testify noted that See Common- was still unresolved. regarding insanity wealth v. 398, 405, n. Terry, 513 Pa. 394 n. A.2d (1987). Thus, the comments which were made foundation, in merely were not without that he judge psychologist testify, questioned competence fact, recognized and stated what have as a that a we is more than a psychiatrist competent testify psycholo- gist. I think the trial would have been well within his judge psychologist testify bounds to have refused to allow this all; then concerned with whether that only we would be judge, of discretion. since the trial abuse concerns, psychologist allowed the despite legitimate *8 in voicing is now he erred those testify, saying concerns. I must dissent from this decision. relatively I find no merit in the innocuous

Similarly, decision to witness as other than designate appellant’s instead, “expert”, “psy- doctor. terms used such as terms of chologist”, “professional”, certainly judge’s and I do not believe that the omission disrespect, the term affected the deliberation. jury’s “doctor”

FLAHERTY, J., Dissenting Opinion. in this joins