Opinion ID: 1973361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mental Health Procedures Act

Text: The Mental Health Procedures Act provides a vehicle by which a trial court, in its discretion, may make a pre-trial determination of a defendant's criminal responsibility. See Commonwealth v. Gainor, 289 Pa.Super. 190, 195, 432 A.2d 1116, 1119 (1981). See generally J.W. Oler, Pennsylvania Criminal Law: Defendant's Mental State §§ 5.9  5.12 (1986). Such a determination may be made only in conjunction with a pre-trial competency examination and hearing. The Act is structured as follows. Section 7402 provides that an application for an incompetency examination may be presented by an attorney for the Commonwealth, a person charged with a crime, his counsel, or the warden or other official in charge of the institution where the person is detained. Id. § 7402(c). The court, after such application or on its own motion, may order an incompetency examination at any stage in the proceedings and may do so without a hearing unless the examination is objected to by the person charged with a crime or by his counsel. Id. § 7402(d). Section 7402(e) provides that, when the court directs an incompetency examination, it may also direct an inquiry into the defendant's criminal responsibility: (e) Conduct of Examination; Report.  When ordered by the court, an incompetency examination shall take place under the following conditions:       (2) It shall be conducted by at least one psychiatrist and may relate both to competency to proceed and to criminal responsibility for the crime charged.       (4) A report shall be submitted to the court and to counsel and shall contain a description of the examination, which shall include: (i) diagnosis of the person's mental condition; (ii) an opinion as to his capacity to understand the nature and object of the criminal proceedings against him and to assist in his defense; (iii) when so requested, an opinion as to his mental condition in relation to the standards for criminal responsibility as then provided by law if it appears that the facts concerning his mental condition may also be relevant to the question of legal responsibility; and (iv) when so requested, an opinion as to whether he had the capacity to have a particular state of mind, where such state of mind is a required element of the criminal charge. Id. (emphasis supplied). The Act further provides that, when a court conducts a subsequent hearing on incompetency, see id. § 7403, the court may, in its discretion, also hear evidence on whether the person was criminally responsible for the commission of the crime charged. Id. § 7404(a). This pre-trial determination of responsibility is to be made by the court in accordance with the rules governing the consideration and determination of the same issue at criminal trial. Id. [12] If the court finds the defendant to have lacked criminal responsibility, an acquittal shall be entered. Id. [13] If the defendant is not acquitted, the defense still may be raised at the subsequent trial. Id. In summary, it is clear that, in the pre-trial setting, the Mental Health Procedures Act and habeas corpus play very different roles. A habeas corpus inquiry is limited to a prima facie evaluation of the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's case, and the court sits, in effect, in a review capacity. Conversely, the Mental Health Procedures Act authorizes a trial court to make a broad inquiry into a defendant's criminal responsibility, and to make a pretrial factual determination concerning a defendant's criminal responsibility.