Court Opinion

ID: 9761201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:34:17.58112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:20.908924
License: Public Domain

*540MONTGOMERY, Judge,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. The issue, as I view it, is whether the requirement of § 301(b)(1) of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. § 7301(b)(1) that clear and present danger to others must be established by conduct which occurred within the previous 30 days is excused in cases where involuntary treatment is determined to be necessary “following an examination in aid of sentencing under section 405.” 50 P.S. § 7406.
The facts of the instant case are not in dispute. Appellant was adjudicated delinquent on February 18, 1982, upon allegations that he committed terroristic threats, simple assault and indecent assault. Thereafter, he was sent to a juvenile diagnostic center at Loysville for an evaluation in aid of disposition.1 Based on that evaluation, a petition for commitment under MHPA was filed, on the basis that appellant, as a result of mental illness, posed a clear and present danger of harm to others.2 50 P.S. § 7301.
The evidence presented at the commitment hearing consisted of the probation officer’s testimony that appellant had been adjudicated delinquent of the above charges and of the evaluating psychiatrist’s testimony of appellant’s mental condition. This hearing took place on May 10, 1982, considerably more than 30 days after the occurrences which formed the basis of the juvenile court’s adjudication.
*541The relevant portions of the MHPA are sections 4053, 4064 and 3015. Section 405 permits a court to order an examination of a person who has been criminally charged to aid the court in its disposition. Section 406 provides that, following such an examination, a petition may be filed “for an order directing involuntary treatment under 304.” Section 3046 requires a finding of clear and present danger as defined in section 301(b)(1)7, which is as follows:
(b) Determination of Clear and Present Danger.—(1) Clear and present danger to others shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days the person has inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm on another and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated. If, however, the person has been found incompetent to be tried or has been acquitted by reason of lack of criminal responsibility on charges arising from conduct involving infliction of or attempt to inflict substantial bodily harm on another, such 30-day limitation shall not apply so long as an application for examination and treatment is filed within 30 days after the date of such determination or verdict. In such case, a clear and present danger to others may be shown by establishing that the conduct charged in the criminal proceeding did occur, and that there is a reasonable probability that such conduct will be repeated.
In interpreting the MHPA, it is important to keep in mind the circumstances that surround its enactment. The previous civil commitment statute, Section 406 of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, had been attacked as unconstitutional in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in July of 1975. On July 8, 1976, a three-judge court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania agreed and enjoined the operation of section 406. Goldy v. Beal, 429 F.Supp. 640 (M.D.Pa.1976). The following day, the MHPA was *542signed into law having been under consideration by the Legislature at least since September of 1975. The basis of the Goldy decision was that the 1966 Act was so vague as to leave too much discretion to the persons implementing it. To some extent, then, the 1976 MHPA was designed to establish more precise standards for civil commitment which would withstand the type of constitutional attack that invalidated the 1966 Act. We must also bear in mind that a diagnosis of mental illness is a subjective one, often being based only on “observed behavioral deviations from the social ‘norm’ ” with the possibility of different diagnoses from different psychiatrists. Note, Standards for Involuntary Civil Commitment in Pennsylvania, 38 U.Pitt.L. Rev. 535, 538-9 (1977). In addition, we must constantly remain aware of the “substantial deprivation of individual liberty inherent in such commitments.... ” Commonwealth v. C.B., 307 Pa.Super. 176, 452 A.2d 1372 (1982). In recognition of these factors, our Supreme Court has required that the “strict conditions [of the MHPA] be satisfied before a court order for commitment shall be issued,” Commonwealth v. Hubert, 494 Pa. 148, 430 A.2d 1160 (1981), even though this may occasionally result in the release of persons who may be mentally ill. Id. See, also, Note, Standards, supra at 546 (“... we appear to be on the verge of ignoring the ancient maxim of the criminal law that it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be imprisoned.”)
With these principles in mind, then, we look to the requirements of section 301(b)(1). With two, and only two exceptions,8 a person may not be involuntarily committed to a mental hospital unless clear and present danger to others is shown by conduct which has occurred within the previous 30 days. Appellant does not fit into either exception because, as the majority correctly notes, the 30-day requirement is not excused by this section in cases where treatment is deemed necessary following an examination under *543section 405. I disagree with the majority’s statement that we can view such a significant omission as an “apparent oversight.” I believe that to be inconsistent with the long line of cases requiring strict adherence to the statutory scheme of the MHPA. See, Commonwealth v. C.B., 307 Pa.Super. 176, 452 A.2d 1372 (1982) (reversed because appellant was served one day prior to the hearing rather than three days as required by the act); In re Condry, 304 Pa.Super. 131, 450 A.2d 136 (1982) (reversed because certification did not include the required description of treatment); Commonwealth v. Blaker, 293 Pa.Super. 391, 446 A.2d 976 (1981) (evidence insufficient to show clear and present danger); In re S.C., 280 Pa.Super. 539, 421 A.2d 853 (1980) (evidence insufficient to meet the stringent standards of the Act); In re Ann S., 279 Pa.Super. 618, 421 A.2d 370 (1980) (reversed because appellant’s emergency commitment under § 302 was extended for 90 days under § 304 rather than for 20 days under § 303). Since neither of the two exceptions of § 301(b)(1) apply to appellant and there was no evidence that appellant had inflicted or attempted to inflict serious bodily harm to another within the 30 days prior to the commitment hearing, I would reverse the order of commitment.
The majority’s concern that this interpretation means there is no way for a court to order involuntary treatment for a person in appellant’s position is an illusory one. There is no reason why a petition for involuntary commitment could not have been filed within the time limits of § 301(b)(1) whether a delinquency petition were pending or not. Scores of people have been committed for involuntary treatment on the basis of conduct for which no criminal or juvenile proceedings were ever instituted. The need for and desirability of such treatment should have been even more apparent in appellant’s case since he was well-known to the juvenile court system at the time the delinquent acts took place. At any rate, a pragmatic approach to the MHPA has already been rejected by this court in Commonwealth v. Blaker, supra, in which we said,
*544It is not enough to find, as the lower court did, that appellant “was truly in need of the services offered by [the] mental health system.” Slip op. at 6. Unless one or more of the requirements of section 301, 50 P.S. § 7301, is met, involuntary commitment is not lawful.
Id. 293 Pa.Super. at 398, 446 A.2d at 982.
I would, therefore, reverse the order of commitment.

. This placement was ostensibly made pursuant to § 405 of the MHPA, 50 P.S. § 7405, which permits a court to order an examination for mental illness ■ whenever "a person who has been criminally charged is to be sentenced.” Appellant has also argued that this section does not apply to juveniles because the language used refers to "criminal” proceedings which does not include an adjudication of delinquency under the Juvenile Act. See, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301. However, under the analysis set forth in this opinion, it is unnecessary to reach this issue.

. There was no evidence that appellant posed a clear and present danger of harm to himself, an alternate basis for involuntary treatment under 50 P.S. § 7301.

. 50 P.S. § 7405.

. 50 P.S. § 7406.

. 50 P.S. § 7301.

. 50 P.S. § 7304.

. 50 P.S. § 7301(b)(1).

. As noted above, these are: (1) if the person has been found incompetent to be tried or (2) if the person has been acquitted by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. 50 P.S. § 7301(b)(1).