J-S07041-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

KI JON HAN

Appellant No. 1169 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered June 11, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0000378-1996

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 10, 2015

Ki Jon Han appeals the order entered June 11, 2014, in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Berks County, recommitting him to Wernersville State 

Hospital (WSH) for a period of one year, subject to conditions for a less 

restrictive alterative being met, pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures 

Act (MHPA), Section 304(g)(ii). We affirm based upon on the trial court’s 

sound opinion.

The trial court aptly summarized the facts and procedural history in its 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion and there is no need to repeat the entire 

background of this case. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/2014, at 1–5. 

Briefly, Han murdered his wife in 1995, and was found not guilty by reason 

of insanity in a non-jury trial in 1997. Han was committed to Norristown 

State Hospital for involuntary inpatient treatment, and was transferred to 
J-S07041-15

- 2 -

WSH in 2007, where he has been recommitted on an annual basis ever 

since. 

Han contends the evidence presented at the recommitment hearing 

held on June 11, 2014, was insufficient to support the decision to recommit 

him. See Han’s Brief at 5. The Honorable Linda K.M. Ludgate has 

provided a thorough, well-reasoned discussion in support of her decision. 

See Trial Court Opinion, supra, at 5–13 (finding: (1) the proceedings in 

this case are governed by the MHPA, 50 P.S. §§ 7304 and 7305; (2) the 

reports of Stephen Burkholder, M.D., Staff Psychiatrist at WSH, and Larry 

Rotenberg, M.D., a forensic psychiatrist from the Reading Hospital and 

Medical Center, were admitted without objection; (3) Dr. Burkholder’s report 

(a) stated Han’s diagnosis as Schizophrenia, undifferentiated type, chronic, 

(b) listed Han’s problems/needs, (c) indicated Han continues to require 

inpatient hospitalization, though discharge to the community is planned, and 

(d) noted the Treatment Team will continue to explore various discharge 

options in coordination and communication with the Court; (4) Dr. 

Rothenberg testified as to his findings, told the court Han was in remission, 

and opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Han should 

remain committed to WSH until such time as a transition can be made in the 

manner described in his report; (5) Han did not present any expert 

testimony to refute Dr. Rotenberg’s expert medical opinion; (6) there is clear 

and convincing evidence that without the structure of the hospital setting, 

there is a reasonable probability that Han will again become psychotic and 
J-S07041-15

- 3 -

pose a danger to himself or others; (7) Dr. Rotenberg outlined the only safe 

way for Han to be released from WSH, which would be to a half-way house 

or long-term residential facility, very slowly, allowing him to return to WSH, 

his safe haven, after each outing to keep him in remission; (8) It is in Han’s 

best interest, and therefore the community’s best interest, for the doctors to 

investigate options and cautiously implement Han’s transition to a long-term 

residential treatment placement over the next year, if possible.) 

Accordingly, we adopt the decision of the trial court as dispositive of the 

issue raised in this appeal.1

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/10/2015

____________________________________________

1

In the event of further proceedings the parties are directed to attach a 

copy of the Trial Court Opinion, 8/20/2014, to this decision.
1 

(", \ 

~! ,J., (_ .. l .... ' 

sing, but he told her not to do that either. Appellant reported that she became angry and 

to pray, and he turned onthe light.. He said his wife brought in a songbook and wanted to 

'- • • '-~ ·••• l.,_. --· _:. • ' • ( 

as a warning sign from the devil not to do that. They went into the living room together 

church clothes and then his wife turned on a light in the bathroom, which Appellant saw 

bedroom where he prepared clothing for them to "go to heaven." They changed into 

notepad; then he put the children to bed. Appellant and his wife went upstairs to the 

not tum the lights on after a certain time. He wrote the restrictions down on a yellow 

these restrictions: do not send the children to school, have his wife teach them, and do 

meant, he said it came to him in his native language of Korean. He claimed God told him 

warnings at first because he was speaking in tongues, but when he asked God what it 

warning signs from God of what he must do or not do. He did not understand the 

Appellant reported that he was praying to God, when he said, all of a sudden, there were 

Korean and wife and mother of his two children. On the evening of September 5, I 995, 

This case involves Appellant's tragic murder of Hwa Ok Han, a 42 year old 

the Mental Health Procedures Act (MHP A), Section 304(g)(ii). 

one year, subject to the conditions for a less restrictive alternative being met, pursuant to 

11, 2014, that recommitted him to the Wernersville State Hospital (\VSH) for a period of 

Before the court is the appeal of Ki Jon Han (Appellant) from the Order of June 

MEMORAJ\TJ)UM OPINION, Ludgate, S.J. AugustJO , 2014. 

John T. Adams, Esquire, District Attorney 

Rourke T. Aston, Esquire, Assistant Public Defender 

Kl JON HAN, No. CP-06-CR-00000378-1996 

Defendant : Superior Court No. 1169 !vIDA 2014 

COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF CO:MMON PLEAS OF 

BERKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

vs. CRIMINAL DIVISION 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
2 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A bail hearing was held on September 6, 1995, and bail was set at $750,000 

because of the nature of the charges. Appellant remained in the Berks County Prison; he 

was transported for examinations by a psychiatrist and a physician. A preliminary 

hearing was held before District Justice Richard Beck on February 6, 1996, and the case 

was bound over for court. 

went into the kitchen and turned on the light. He claimed that, at this point, something 

happened and suddenly he had no control over himself. He began hitting his wife with a 

stick, and then with a kitchen chair. His daughter reported that he was saying that the 

devil was in his wife and it had to be beaten out. Appellant recalled hearing the voice 

telling him to chase the devil from his wife. He heard voices coming from her and 

thought there were three or five devils in her. Appellant reported that he thought, when a 

person has too many devils in them, you have to get them out. At first Appellant thought 

it was God talking to him but he later said he realized it was the devil speaking to him. 

After the beating, Appellant asked thevoice what he should do and he said he was 

told to put his wife's body in their bed, cover her and then call the police. When the 

police arrived, Appellant told them that he had killed his wife and that now he must kill 

himself. The police located the body of the victim in a bedroom at 2229 Reading Blvd., 

Spring Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, at 6:46 am. Appellant was taken into 

custody. Ultimately, Appellant was found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and 

committed to Norristown State Hospital for involuntary inpatient. treatment He was 

transferred to WSH in July of 2007. He has been recommitted on an annual basis ever 

since. 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
3 

Emmanuel Dimitriou, Esquire, now deceased, entered his appearance on behalf of 

Appellant on February 27, I 996, and, on that date, Appellant was arraigned on the 

charges of Murder of the First Degree, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a); Murder 

of the Third Degree, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(c); two counts of Aggravated 

Assault, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(a)(l) & (a)(4); and Possessing Instruments 

of Crime, in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(a). After being given an extension of time, 

counsel for. Appellant filed an Omnibus Pre Trial Motion on April 10, 1996. The pretrial 

motion was subsequently amended to include a Motion for Court Determination of 

Defendant's Competency and PreTrial Determination of Sanity. A pretrial hearing was 

set for April 24, 1996, but continued to May 15, 1996. The hearing was again continued 

to July 24, 1996 in order to have psychiatric exams and reports/opinions completed. The 

matter was then continued generally, pending the outcome of the John E DuPont, on 

behalf of himself and all those similarly situated in the Commonwealth of PA vs. The 

Court of Common Pleas of Delmvare County and All Courts of Common P1eas in the 

Commonwealth of PA case before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, concerning the 

competency standard to be applied in these types of cases. At a status hearing on 

October 24, 1996, Appellant, through counsel, withdrew his portion of the Omnibus 

PreTrial Motion dealing with his competency based on the report of Dr. Larry A. 

Rotenberg, a forensic psychiatrist, dated October 10, 1996, indicating that Dr. Rotenberg 

found Appellant competent to stand trial. 

On January 14, 1997, the Motion for Determination of Competency and Criminal 

Responsibility was refiled after Appellant had several more delusional episodes and was 

unresponsive during an evaluation by the Commonwealth's psychiatric experts. It was 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
4 

"AND NOW, this n" day of June, 2014, a hearing having been held on 

this date, and the Court having had admitted a report from Dr. Burkholder, a staff 

psychiatrist at Wernersville State Hospital, as well as from Dr. Rotenberg,. a 

forensic psychiatrist at Reading Hospital and Medical Center, and those reports 

having been reviewed, as well as Dr. Rotenberg having appeared and testified, the 

Court determines under the Mental Health Procedures Act 304 (g)(ii) that Ki Jon 

Han shall remain in Wernersville State Hospital for a period of one year until June 

11, 2015, the psychiatrist in the report as well as Dr. Rotenberg having 

determined that he is not yet well enough to be released into the community, the 

Court also being aware that Mr. Han's religious views played a significant role in 

the murder of bis wife making the Court concerned that his religion could be a 

facade, 

part, as follows: 

facility and conditional discharge plan could be arranged, The Order states, in pertinent 

recommitted for treatment an additional year, or until such time as an acceptable alternate 

The most recent review hearing was held on June 11, 2014. Appellant was 

Appellant has been recommitted each subsequent year. 

thereafter, mental health review hearings have been held before the undersigned, and 

facility, pursuant to 50 P.S. §7304(g)(ii) of the Mental Health Procedures Act. Annually 

involuntarily committed for one year to confinement in a secure mental health treatment 

Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Also on April 28, 1997, the Court ordered Appellant 

After taking testimony and reviewing the exhibits, the Court entered a verdict of Not 

right to a jury trial and the matter proceeded as a bench trial before the undersigned. 

responses. On April 18, 1997, a trial was set for April 28, 1997. Appellant waived his 

counsel to file extensive written motions setting forth the relief requested and written 

;::,_·. 

would present testimony. In lieu of this hearing, on March 25, 1997, the Court ordered 

held on March 26, 1997, at which time Commonwealth and defense psychiatric experts 

the Commonwealth and Appellant entered into a stipulation that a M'Naghten Hearing be 

scheduled for hearing on February 18, 1997, but was deferred when, on January 16, 1997, 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
5 

(g) Duration of Court-ordered Involuntary Treatruent.--(1) A person 

may be made subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment under this 

section for a period not to exceed 90 days, excepting only that: Persons 

may be made subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment under this 

section for a period not to exceed one year if the person meets the criteria 

established by clause (2). 

(2) A person may be subject to court-ordered involuntary treatment for a 

period not to exceed one year if: 

(i) severe mental disability is based on acts giving rise to the following 

charges under the Pennsylvania Crimes Code: murder (§ 2502); voluntary 

manslaughter(§ 2503); aggravated assault(§ 2702); kidnapping(§ 2901); 

rape(§ 3121(1) and (2)); involuntary deviate sexual intercourse(§ 3123(1) 

and (2)); arson(§ 3301); and 

(ii) a finding of incompetency to be tried or a verdict of acquittal because 

of lack of criminal responsibility has been entered. 

under Section 7304(g), which states: 

The proceedings in this case are governed by the Mental Health Procedures Act, 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

year pursuant to 50 P.S. §§ 7304 and 7305." 

June 11, 2014 was insufficient to support recommitting the Defendant for a period of one 

"The evidence presented at the Recommitment Hearing held in this matter on 

In his concise statement, Appellant asserts: 

concise statement of the errors complained of on appeal, which he filed on July 29, 2014. 

Superior Court from this Order. On July 16, 2014, the Court ordered Appellant to file a 

On July 11, 2014, Appellant, through counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal to the 

. hearing set in the interim under the terms of the Order. 

The Order also provided for another review hearing to be held in one year if there is no 

In addition, the Court finds that should Wernersville State Hospital obtain 

an acceptable facility, and Wernersville State Hospital having developed a plan 

consistent with the report of Dr. Rotenberg dated June 2, 2014, the hospital shall 

notify this Court so that a hearing could be held to determine if the Court finds it 

acceptable." 

Order, 6/11/14. 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
6 

(2) Where a petition is filed for a person already subject to involuntary 

provides: 

than the standard of conduct required for the initial commitment, Section 7304(a)(2) 

be noted that the standard of conduct needed to continue a person's commitment is less 

"clear and present danger" of harm to himself or others. 50 P .S. § 7304(a), (f). It should 

must also show, by dear and convincing evidence, that the individual continues to pose a 

hearing. In Re R.G. 11 A.3d 513, 518 (Pa.Super.2010). In addition, the petitioner 

recommitted, a finding of mental disability is required at every annual recommitment 

By the clear dictates of the MHP A, in order for an individual to be involuntarily 

(a) At the expiration of a period of court-ordered involuntary treatment 

under section 304(g) or this section, the court may order treatment for an 

additional period upon the application of the county administrator or the 

director of the facility in which the person is receiving treatment. Such 

order shall be entered upon hearing on findings as required by sections 

304(a) arid (b \ and the further finding of a need for continuing involuntary 

treatment as shown by conduct during the person's most recent period of 

court-ordered treatment. The additional period of involuntary treatment 

shall not exceed 180 days; provided that persons meeting the criteria of 

section 304(g)(2) may be subject to an additional period of up to one year 

of involuntary treatment. A person found dangerous to himself under 

section 301 (b )(2)(i), (ii) or (iii) shall be subject to an additional period of 

involuntary full-time inpatient treatment only if he has first been released 

to a less restrictive alternative. This limitation shall not apply where, upon 

application made by the county administrator or facility director, it is 

determined by a judge or mental health review officer that such release 

would not be in the person's best interest. 

50 P.S. 7305(a). 

7305. Additional periods of court-ordered involuntary treatment. 

in need of treatment). Section 7305(a) specifically provides: 

held to reassess the requirements of 7304( a)( l )( a person is severely mentally disabled and 

Section 7305 of the MHP A provides for recommitment after a review hearing is 

50 P.S. § 7304(g). 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01 :37 PM 
7 

planned; he is to continue to participate in group and individual therapy. Dr. Burkholder 

require inpatient hospitalization, though discharge to community rehabilitation is 

at bedtime to control his symptoms. Dr. Burkholder reported that Appellant continues to 

appropriate discharge plan in light of 304gii status, Appellant is only taking olanzapine 

2) Legal issues; 3) Denial of mental illness/poor insight; and 4) Development of an 

chronic. He reported Appellant's problems/needs list as follows: 1) History of psychosis; 

Burkholder reported Appellant's diagnosis as Schizophrenia, undifferentiated type, 

the Reading Hospital and Medical Center, were entered without objection. Dr. 

M.D., Staff Psychiatrist at \VSH, and Dr. Larry A. Rotenberg, a forensic psychiatrist from 

At the review hearing on June 11, 2014, the reports of Dr. Stephen Burkholder, 

"Ki Jon Han is a 66 year old male with a diagnosis of chronic Schizophrenia, 

undifferentiated type, who was admitted to Wernersville State Hospital from 

Norristown State Hospital on July 7, 2007. He has poor insight into his illness. 

He keeps his emotion suppressed. He is religiously preoccupied. He needs a 

highly structured supervised setting to maintain mental health stability." 

was examined on May 23, 2014 and the results of the examination were listed as follows: 

"is currently on 304 g ii level care and requires structured supervisory care." Appellant 

mentally disabled and in need of inpatient treatment. The petition states that the patient 

Appellant, a patient receiving involuntary treatment under Section 304(g)(ii), is severely 

asserting that Appellant had been examined by Dr. Arzoo Habib of WSH, who found that 

A petition was submitted to this Court by Service Access Management, Inc., 

treatment, it shall be sufficient to present, and upon hearing to reestablish, 

that the conduct originally required by section 301 in fact occurred, and 

that his condition continues to evidence a clear and present danger to 

himself or others. In such event, it shall not be necessary to show the 

reoccurrence of dangerous conduct, either harmful or debilitating, within 

the past 30 days. 

50 P.S. § 7304(a)(2). 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
8 

Appellant has known for years and Dr. Rotenberg opined that "taking him out of that 

once they found out about Appellant's history. Id. at 13. WSHis the only home that 

Philadelphia, which has a large Korean community, he would be immediately ostracized 

Dr. Rotenberg also noted that, should Appellant go to a halfway house in 

" ... he must never be treated as an ordinary patient. Not because of the 

possibilities of the future, but because of the realities of the past. Because 

in addition to the fact that he killed his wife and as a result of that he is 

totally isolated from his own culture, and, frankly, part of the concern 

about him is that in spite of the fact that he is a fairly intelligent individual, 

he has had English lessons in high school and in college in Korea, and, of 

course, he's lived in this country for 30 years, 30 years, more than 30 

, years, and so the fact that given his normal intelligence he has learned so 

little English in the course of more than three decades is a measure of 

his ... lack of a culturalization. And so that's, of course, a factor, and I go 

into it in much more detail in my report about his difficulty in relating to 

other people, and what is of more concern is that he is totally isolated from 

his own family. His brother who's a distinguished radiologist in the 

Philadelphia area and who actually supported him during the trial and was 

here and whom I met totally alienated himself from him. His children are 

totally alienated from him. They have never had a Christmas card, a 

birthday card, an e-mail, nothing, no communication." 

Id. at 12. 

Dr. Rotenberg cautioned the court: 

that he's at Wernersville which has been his home for so long ... " Id. 

should be taken into account is the fact that part of how good [ Appellant] looks is the fact 

delusional disorder and all that goes with it." Id. Dr. Rotenberg noted that, "what 

continued, " ... underneath that facade there still lurks the possibility of a resurgent and 

and religiosity, religious preoccupation. Notes of Testimony, 6/11/14, at 8. He 

remission now, but that no one should be fooled by his superficial facade of courtliness 

Dr. Rotenberg testified as to his findings and told the Court that Appellant is in 

coordination and communication with the Court. Court Exhibit 1. 

noted that the Treatment Team will continue to explore various discharge options in 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01 :37 PM 
9 

The fact that Appellant's schizophrenia/psychosis is in remission does not mean 

and the utmost vigilance." Cami Exhibit 2, at 7. 

Dr. Rotenberg stated in his report that this transition must be done "with the utmost care, 

Id. at 14; Cami Exhibit 2, at 6-7. 

• "I believe that discharging [ Appellant] from WSH should take place over a 

year, and it should be done in stages which are discreet, and which are very 

tightly monitored. And I believe that should any regression occur on the part 

of [ Appellant], any consideration for his discharge should be laid aside, and he 

should be kept in the hospital. 

• And so, within the next year, much detailed work needs to be done in order to 

consider placement of him in the community. First of all, there needs to be 

established a halfway house, which given his history, is willing to take him. 

• Once that is established, he should make several day visits to that place, and 

this should be monitored closely both by the staff of WSH and the staff at the 

halfway house. 

• If the initial introduction works out satisfactorily, then he can be allowed to go 

to the halfway house to stay for as long as a week and each time coming back 

to WSH at the end of that time. 

• If all of that works out over a period of about a year, and [Appellant] makes 

the transition successfully, then he can be discharged to the halfway house. 

• Even if the transition is successful, and he makes the change from WSH to a 

halfway house, he should be retained on an outpatient commitment, so that if 

any kind of concern is expressed, he can then be returned to the State Hospital 

as expeditiously as possible, with the least hindrance. 

e The most important issue with [Appellant] is that he must never be allowed to 

go underneath the radar, and to disappear from close follow-up, and 

preferably, from Court supervision. 

• No one should be fooled by [Appellant's] superficial facade of courtliness, 

and religiosity. 

• Underneath that facade, there certainly still lurks the possibility of a resurgent 

delusional disorder and all that goes with it. 

• [Appellant] cannot be ever considered as a regular routine follow-up patient. 

pertinent part: 

Hospital until such time as a transition is made in the manner described in his report, in 

of medical certainty, that Appellant should remain committed to Wernersville State 

both for him and for the community." Id. Dr. Rotenberg opined, to a reasonable degree 

home and putting him into another strange home has to be done with the utmost caution 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01 :37 PM 
10 

that AppelJant has been cured. Dr. Rotenberg informed the court that, just like a cancer 

that is in remission, the psychosis can come back. Appellant still has a mental disability 

with delusional ideas; he requires a highly structured supervised setting to remain in· 

remission. Appellant has not presented us with any expert testimony to refute Dr. 

Rotenberg's expert medical opinion. 

Appellant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support recommitting him 

for a year. Counsel argued at the hearing that the burden to recommit includes acts that 

occurred in the past 30 days that show Appellant is a danger to himself or others. This 

argument is directly in contradiction to § 7304(a)(2) and established caselaw. The 

lvIHPA requires two elements, as discussed in Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 112 

S.Ct. 1780, 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992), to be established: a current mental disability and a 

determination of dangerousness. See In Re R.G., supra, at 519. "Clear and present 

danger" may be demonstrated by establishing that: (1) the conduct that led to the 

- criminal proceedings occurred, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that such 

conduct will be repeated. Id. (citation omitted). "A petitioner need not prove that an 

insanity acquittee who had been charged with criminal homicide will actually kill again. 

It is sufficient to show a reasonable probability that some form of violent conduct will 

occur." Id. "'Probability' denotes a chance stronger than possibility but falling short of 

certainty." Commonwealth v. Helms, 506 A.2d 1384, 1389 (Pa.Super.1986). · "The 

prior conduct of one who is mentally ill may be an indicator of_foture behavior." In Re: 

R.G., supra, at 519. ''[I]nvolvement in such an extreme forrn of violence, while not 

dispositive, is one factor the hearing judge may consider in his evaluation of the 

appellant's continued dangerousness." Id. at 518 ( citations omitted). Any lack of recent 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01 :37 PM 
] 1 

In the case at bar, the Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that 

III. CONCLUSION 

7304( a)(2). 

harmful or debilitating, within the past 30 days. Id.( citations omitted); 50 P .S. § 

provides that 'it shall not be necessary to show recurrence of dangerous conduct either 

credible. Id. The Superior Court also stated, " ... in the recommitment setting, the statute 

noted that it was for the factfinder to determine what testimony he determined more 

with less structure than that provided by a state hospital. Id. at 423. The Superior Court 

he would decompensate back into overt psychotic behavior if he were placed in a setting 

paranoid schizophrenia albeit in partial remission and that there was a significant risk that 

psychiatric testimony to that effect. The facts showed that Watt was still suffering from 

evidence to establish that he posed a clear and present danger to anyone and he presented 

severely mentally disabled. He argued, specifically, the lack of clear and convincing 

appeal, Watt argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he was 

because of lack of criminal responsibility. He was recommitted on six occasions. In his 

was involuntarily committed to Fairview State Hospital following his acquittal of murder 

In the case of In Re Glenn ,vatt, 525 A.2d 421 (Pa.Super.1987), the appellant 

Schizophrenia, Am.J. Psychiatry 132: 1237 (1975). 

is greatly increased." Id. citing Davis, Overview: Maintenance Therapy in Psychiatry: 

without anti-psychotic medication, a schizophrenic's risk of relapse into a psychotic state 

hospital since the killing occurred." Helms, supra, at 1390. It is well documented that 

and should be viewed in light of the fact that appellant has been confined to a mental 

evidence of actual violent conduct does not negate a finding of "clear and present danger 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 

·; 
12 

Appellant continues to pose a clear and present danger to himself or others. The conduct 

that led to the criminal proceedings is uncontested; Appellant murdered his wife by 

beating her to death with a blunt object, most likely, a kitchen chair. There is a 

reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated. Appellant's schizophrenia may 

be in remission, but this is due to the structure of the hospital setting that ensures he take 

his psychotropic medication. WSH has been his home for over two decades. In fact, it 

has been more than his home; it is his whole world. Out in the community, by contrast, 

Appellant has no family he can turn to for support, His brother no longer talks to him· 

and his children no longer speak to him; in fact, he does not even know where they are. 

Also, Appellant does not speak much English. If he were to be released to go to 

Philadelphia, where there is a large Korean population, he will be ostracized by that 

community once they learn of his past. Appellant still has a deep religious preoccupation, 

a factor that had a bearing on the murder of his wife. Considering these factors, the Court 

finds that, by clear and convincing evidence, without the structure of the hospital setting, 

there is a reasonable probability that Appellant will again become psychotic and pose a 

danger to himself or others. 

Dr. Rotenberg outlined the only safe way for Appellant to be released from WSH, 

which would be into a half-way house or long-term residential treatment program, and 

then only very slowly, step by step, allowing Appellant to return to WSH, his safe haven, 

after each outing, to keep him in remission. Dr. Rotenberg urged extreme caution and 

vigilance because of the potential for Appellant to harm himself or others if the transition 

into less strncture proves damaging to him. 

It is in Appellant's best interest, and therefore the community's best interest, for 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM 
13 

BY THE COURT: 

the doctors to carefully research less restrictive alternatives to Wernersville State 

Hospital and to cautiously implement Appellant's transition to a long-term residential 

treatment placement over the next year, if this could be possible. 

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Superior Court affirm 

the order of June 11, 2014. 

Circulated 03/18/2015 01:37 PM