Opinion ID: 1973361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: procedures governing pre-trial challenges to sufficiency and criminal responsibility

Text: The Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 101 et seq., provides that [a]ny judge of a court of record may issue the writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention of any person or for any other lawful purpose. Id. § 6502(a). It is settled that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the proper means for testing a pre-trial finding that the Commonwealth has sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. Commonwealth v. Morman, 373 Pa.Super. 360, 363, 541 A.2d 356, 357 (1988); see also Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17, 331 A.2d 205 (1975). A pre-trial petition for a writ of habeas corpus, therefore, is similar in purpose to a preliminary hearing. See Commonwealth v. Morman, supra, 373 Pa.Super. at 365, 541 A.2d at 359. `The primary reason for the preliminary hearing is to protect an individual's right against unlawful arrest and detention. It seeks to prevent a person from being imprisoned or required to enter bail for a crime which was never committed, or for a crime with which there is no evidence of his connection. . . .' Id. (citations omitted). Thus, the focus of a pre-trial habeas petition is on whether sufficient Commonwealth evidence exists to require a defendant to be held in government `custody' until he may be brought to trial. Id., 373 Pa.Superior Ct. at 367, 541 A.2d at 360. In making this pre-trial determination, the habeas court is not limited to reviewing the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing; instead, the Commonwealth may present additional evidence at the habeas corpus stage in its effort to establish at least prima facie that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the person who committed it. Id., 373 Pa.Superior Ct. at 365-66, 541 A.2d at 359.
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.