Case Name: Commonwealth v. Moon, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1956-10-03
Citations: 386 Pa. 205
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 250
Parties: Commonwealth v. Moon, Appellant.
Judges: Before Steen, O. J., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Aenold, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 386
Pages: 205–231

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Moon, Appellant.
Argued June 25, 1956.
Before Steen, O. J., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Aenold, JJ.
October 3, 1956:
Edward Dumbauld, with him Thomas A. Waggoner, Jr., Samuel D. Braemer, John Duggan, Jr., and E. II. Beshlin, for appellant.
Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, with him Harrington Adams, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Chidsey,
On January 13, 1954 the appellant Norman W. Moon appearing before the Court of Quarter Sessions of Warren County on a charge of failure to comply with a support order, shot and fatally wounded the Honorable Allison D. Wade, President Judge of the 37th Judicial District. Following his apprehension appellant was indicted, tried and on May 25, 1954 convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury rejected Ms sole defense of insanity and fixed the penalty at death. About two months thereafter, on July 31, 1954, while appellant was confined in the Warren County Jail pending disposition of his motion for new trial, the county sheriff as keejjer of the jail petitioned the court for the appointment of a commission under The Mental Health Act of June 12, 1951, P. L. 533, as amended, 50 PS §1071-1622. Without holding a hearing on the petition, the court on July 31, 1954 appointed a commission composed of two physicians and an attorney to investigate appellant's mental condition. After examining the defendant and holding hearings at which testimony and statements were taken, the commission on October 13, 1954 filed its report with the court in which it found that Moon was mentally ill, the illness being diagnosed as dementia praecox of the paranoid type, an illness chronic and continuing, and that he was a proper subject for commitment to a mental hospital. The commission also found that with the exception of two periods of acute mental disturbance, one at the time of his commitment and the other after the commission first met, both of which disturbances promptly subsided, appellant ". . . knew Avhy he Avas in jail . . ., knew that he faced a sentence in accordance with the jury verdict . . ., knows that he is on trial for his life . . ., recalls his trial . . ., admits that no one is justified in taking anyone else's life . . ., knoAvs that it is not right to shoot anybody . . ., and Avhat the consequences of his acts might be . . The court after revieAving the report of the commission and the evidence on vvhich it Avas based, Avas not satisfied that the defendant was a proper subject for commitment and directed that the proceedings in his case should continue. In arriving at this conclusion the court applied the laAv as it existed prior to the enactment of The Mental Health Act of 1951. The defendant appealed to this Court and in a decision handed doAAm October 5, 1955, see 383 Pa. 18, 117 A. 2d 98, we held that The Mental Health Act of 1951 had changed the test to be used in staying criminal proceedings and that the test prescribed by it was whether the defendant had a mental illness which so lessened his capacity to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be under care. We therefore remanded the record and directed the court to reexamine the commission's findings and recommendation and to reconsider the evidence "together with additional relevant evidence" in the light of the statutory definition of mental illness.
Thereafter counsel for the Commonwealth requested the court to fix a hearing to receive additional relevant evidence as to the defendant's conduct between the time of his examination by the commission and the filing of the opinion of this Court, a period of approximately fifteen months. The court notified the defendant's counsel of the Commonwealth's request for hearing and the nature of the testimony it proposed to produce and suggested that a date for hearing he agreed upon far enough in the future to afford counsel for the defendant opportunity to determine and prepare any evidence which he might desire to produce at such hearing. Counsel for the defendant and the Commonwealth agreed on December 12, 1955 as the date for hearing. At this hearing seven employes of the Western State Penitentiary to which defendant had been removed in April, 1955 testified, namely, the warden, the prison doctor, the three guards who had been continuously in charge of the defendant in eight-hour shifts, a guard who supervised visits from members of the defendant's family, and the guard who read all letters written by the defendant in Ms capacity as mail censor. At the completion of their testimony defendant's counsel advised the court that he had no testimony to offer. The prison doctor testified that he made a physical examination of the defendant upon his admission and thereafter saw Mm at least once a week; that defendant was well nourished and physically active; that aside from an affliction in the middle ear which caused a ringing in the ears, and a few stomach upsets which were easily controlled, the defendant was physically well; that he observed the defendant at times reading in Ms cell and at times in the exercise yard playing games with other prisoners. The warden testified that the defendant participated in the exercise periods, both morning and evening; that he oh tained books and magazines from the library, corresponded with Ms family and friends, and purchased items from the prison commissary; that he was visited once a month by various members of his family, and once each day by someone from the medical department as were all others confined in the isolation block; that the defendant had requested and received visits from the prison chaplain. The three guards who were in charge of the defendant at all times except some Saturdays and Sundays, testified to numerous contacts and conversations with the defendant and observed him continuously for almost eight months; that his conversation and all his actions were normal and that they noted no unusual or abnormal conduct; that he regularly drew from the prison library at least three books a week, sometimes six; that he subscribed to two magazines, "The Argosy" and "Hunting and Fishing" ; that he also had access to and read other magazines such as "Life" and "Time"; that he shaved regularly; that he didn't smoke. One of the guards, Lieutenant King, testified that he supervised visits which defendant received from his mother and brother; that there were no restrictions on defendant's visiting privileges and the visits lasted about a half hour under his constant supervision. William E. Holmes, who was mail censor of the prison, testified that he read all letters written by the defendant Avhich were about sixty in number; that he Avrote to his father, mother, brothers and an aunt, and to a former employer; that nothing unusual was noted in any of the letters and that no items were included which had to be stricken out. This witness testified that he noticed nothing in connection with the letters Avhich might indicate a lack of self-control or judgment or discretion, and all of the witnesses similarly testified with respect to the defendant's conduct generally, which was normal throughout. No complaint of misconduct on the part of tlie defendant was ever made. All of the witnesses had been associated with the Western State Penitentiary for periods ranging from five to thirty-two years.
Thereafter the court filed an opinion and the following order: "And now, January 28, 1956 the Court having reexamined the findings and recommendation of the Sanity Commission appointed in this case, and having reconsidered the evidence together with additional relevant evidence, as directed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Opinion, and upon consideration of the entire record in the case, and the Court not being satisfied that the defendant is mentally ill as defined in the Mental Health Act of 1951 and the standards set by the Supreme Court in this case, it is hereby Ordered that proceedings in this case shall continue and any additional reasons for a new trial shall he filed forthwith.". Exceptions thereto viere dismissed after argument and a final order entered on March 29, 1958 affirming the earlier order. This appeal followed.
In construing The Mental Health Act of 1951 we stated in onr disposition of the prior appeal (383 Pa. at p. 28) : ". . . the controlling factor is the degree or extent to which the mind is affected by the mental disorder and not the hare existence of symptoms which would induce a psychiatrist to diagnose a mental illness. . . .", and that the determinative issue is whether the illness so lessened the defendant's capacity to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion as to render it necessary or advisable for him to be under care. This we held to be the standard which the Legislature promulgated to guide the commission and the court. The commission found the defendant had a mental illness and was a proper subject for commitment to a mental hospital. It does not appear that the commission applied the standard prescribed by the Legislature, but as we said in the earlier appeal at p. 29: "Assuming the commission found appellant a proper subject for commitment under this standard, its findings while persuasive were nevertheless advisory only and not mandatory upon the court, for under Section 345(d) of the Act it is the court and not the commission which must be satisfied that appellant is mentally ill under the standard prescribed. It follows that the court in the instant case could have rejected, although not arbitrarily or capriciously, the commission's findings and conclusions and could have independently determined from the evidence that appellant's capacity to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion had not been so lessened that it was necessary or advisable for him to be under care. . . .".
The appellant argues that the testimony of the witnesses connected with the Western State Penitentiary should not have been admitted. This argument is part and parcel of the major contention made at oral argument and in the brief of appellant's counsel that the defendant's conduct throughout as it bore on the exercise of his self-control, judgment and discretion, was a matter solely for interpretive determination by medical experts — a medical issue which the commission, two of the three members of which were qualified medical experts, conclusively decided. This contention flies in the face of all of our decisions. We have repeatedly and invariably held not only that testimony of laymen as well as experts is admissible in determining the mental status of a criminal defendant but that all of Such testimony is for the consideration, of. the legal tribunal, be it court or jury, which has the ultimate determination of the issue: Commonwealth v. Lance, 381 Pa. 293, 113 A. 2d 290; Commonwealth v. Patskin, 372 Pa. 402, 93 A. 2d 704; Commonwealth v. Carluccetti, 369 Pa. 190, 85 A. 2d 391; Commonwealth v. Cavalier, 284 Pa. 311, 131 A. 229; Commonwealth v. Gearhardt, 205 Pa. 387, 54. A. 1029; Commonwealth v. Wireback, 190 Pa. 138, 42 A. 542. As stated in Commonwealth v. Carluccetti, supra, quoting from Commonwealth v. Cilione, 293 Pa. 208, 142 A. 216: ". . . '. . . You do not have to be a psychiatrist to judge whether a man's actions are normal or abnormal. . . .' "
Under The Mental Health Act of 1951, as under the prior Act of July 11, 1923, P. L. 998, it is expressly provided that the court, not the commission, must be satisfied that the defendant's mental condition is such as to require his commitment to a mental hospital. The report of the commission is advisory only: Commonwealth v. Patskin, supra; Commonwealth v. Ballem, 386 Pa. 20, 123 A. 2d 728. As was stated in Commonwealth v. Bechtel, 384 Pa. 184 at p. 190, 120 A. 2d 295: ". . . Inquiries into the mental health or sanity of a prisoner whether made before trial or after conviction and before sentence are 'to inform the conscience of the judge'.": Commonwealth v. Iacobino, 319 Pa. 65, 178 A. 823; Commonwealth v. Scovern, 292 Pa. 26, 140 A. 611. In the instant case the court observed the defendant throughout his trial which lasted two weeks and at which he testified at length, examined and considered the evidence adduced before the commission which included testimony by the defendant and by medical experts, the commission's findings and report, heard the testimony of witnesses during defendant's incarceration at the Western State Penitentiary and determined that the defendant had suffered no lessening of his capacity to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion. We have thor oughly reviewed the record and are convinced that the court did not abuse its discretion in reaching such conclusion.
The appellant also contends that the court erred in excluding certain evidence. As to this the record nowhere discloses that any request was made of the court to hear witnesses on defendant's behalf. At the completion of the testimony of the witnesses from the Western State Penitentiary at the hearing on December 12, 1955, counsel for defendant expressly stated that "The defendant has no testimony to offer, if the Court please." As before stated, the court advised defendant's counsel that the date of hearing for taking-additional testimony would be fixed far enough in the future to afford opportunity for counsel to prepare any evidence which they might desire to produce at the hearing. Therefore it is surprising to find in the exceptions filed to the court's ruling oí January 28, 1956 complaint that defendant should have been afforded but was denied an opportunity to submit additional evidence from medical experts. These exceptions conld have been dismissed summarily. Assuming, however, that such a request was informally made, possibly during oral argument on the exceptions inasmuch as the court in its opinion indulgently considered the matter, the hearing of additional testimony was discretionary with the court as indeed is the appointment of a commission in the first instance (Commonwealth v. Gossard, 385 Pa. 332, 123 A. 2d 258, and cases cited therein) and we find no abuse of discretion. If the court were required to reopen the proceedings for the introduction of additional testimony by medical experts on defendant's behalf, by like token it would be obliged to hear additional testimony by medical experts offered by the Commonwealth in rebuttal. In fact there would be little power in the court to end the inquiry which could be indefinitely prolonged by the persistence and resourcefulness of counsel. The rights of the defendant as an offender on trial for an offense are not here involved. The inquiry is not an adversary proceeding to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant but a collateral proceeding entirely apart therefrom to inform the conscience of the court as to the appellant's mental condition — not merely whether defendant had a mental illness or disorder in the opinion of psychiatrists or medical witnesses but, assuming that some mental illness existed, whether it so lessened his capacity to use his customary self-control, judgment and discretion in the conduct of his affairs and social relations as to make it necessary or advisable for him to be under care. This was for the evaluation of the court and the extent of the inquiry was within its discretion. It cannot be said that the Avide scope of the court's inquiry, above outlined, which included consideration of the opinions of several impartial qualified medical experts, was insufficient to inform the conscience of the court as to the defendant's mental status under the test or standard prescribed by The Mental Health Act.
We are fully satisfied that the court did not commit any error of law or abuse its discretion in refusing to commit defendant to a mental hospital and in directing that the proceedings in the criminal action continue.
Order affirmed.
In referring to the two occasions reported by tbe commission of acute mental disturbance which "promptly subsided", the court in its opinion states: "These two brief instances, wbicb were in part at least stimulated by tbe stress of bis confinement, of wbicb there is no evidence of any reoccurrence in tbe record, can bardly bo taken as indicative of any general lessening in defendant's capacity to use bis customary seif control, judgment and discretion. A repetition of sucb episodes could bave been readily observed by anyone having close supervision of tbe defendant, with or without medical training, and tbe testimony of tbe prison guards who were in charge of tbe defendant and bave bad him under close supervision at all times shows no repetition of such episodes since August of 1&54.".
During tbe bearings before tbe commission, counsel for tbe defendant requested permission to present medical testimony before the commission "to insure examination by trained psychiatric personnel not employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania." The Deputy Attorney General expressed tbe opinion that tbe request "goes to tbe proof of tbe competency and prejudice of tbe present commission and as such should be addressed to the court and not tbe commission." Defendant's counsel then stated it was not challenging tbe competency of the commission but requesting that testimony be received by a psychiatrist or psychiatrists not affiliated in any way with the Commonwealth "in any employer- employee relationship." The commission stated it would consider the request. The commission found the defendant a proper subject for commitment and apparently decided it did not require additional medical testimony to arrive at its conclusion. Counsel made no application to the court for the taking of additional testimony either before or after the commission filed its report. After consideration of the report and the record of the proceedings and testimony before the Commission, the court filed an opinion and order dated October 21, 1954, refusing commitment and directing that the criminal proceedings continue. In the course of its opinion the court, referred to and approved the judgment of the commission in not calling additional medical witnesses. If defendant's counsel felt that the commission's conclusion should have been buttressed by additional medical testimony, they could have filed an appropriate exception. However they filed only a general exception which after argument thereon was dismissed by the court below in an extensive opinion and order filed February 9, 1955 to which again only a general exception was filed, and on the first appeal to this Court made no complaint regarding the action of the Commission in not receiving additional medical testimony. At no time did counsel for the defendant make any request whatsoever to the Court, to present additional medical testimony on defendant's behalf but, contrariwise, after we remanded the case for reconsideration, the court below, as stated in the text of this opinion, went out of its way to afford opportunity for the introduction of additional testimony on defendant's behalf.