Court Opinion

ID: 9692884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:10:22.427444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:37.811144
License: Public Domain

BECK, Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority’s discussion and resolution of Trill’s first six challenges to his sentence. I also agree with the majority that Pennsylvania’s guilty but mentally ill statute, 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 314 (Purdon 1987) is constitutional. However, I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the constitutionality of that statute.
Trill first claims that his due process rights were violated because the definitions of “mentally ill” and “legally insane” overlap. He asserts that the defendant who falls within the definitional overlap is exposed to the risk that the jury will arbitrarily categorize him as “mentally ill” rather than “legally insane.” The consequences of such a categorization are significant. If a defendant is found to be guilty but mentally ill, he is subject to the full range of criminal penalties applicable to someone found simply guilty. The legally insane defendant, on the other hand, is immune from the punishments of the criminal law, and will *599be released from state custody unless he is determined to be currently dangerous to himself or to others.1
Trill claims that the definitions of “mentally ill” and “legally insane” overlap in the case of the defendant whose mental problems prevent him from comprehending the wrongfulness of his conduct. “Mentally ill” for purposes of application of the guilty but mentally ill verdict is defined as follows:
“Mentally ill.” One who as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. (emphasis added)
18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 314(c)(1) (Purdon 1983).
Legal insanity constituting a defense to a crime is defined as follows:
[T]he phrase “legally insane” means that, at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if the actor did know the quality of the act, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. (emphasis added)
18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 315(b) (Purdon 1983). Trill argues that there is no meaningful difference between “one who .. lacks substantial capacity ... to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct” (mentally ill) and “[one who] did not know that what he was doing was wrong” (legally insane). Therefore, he claims, the jury could not make a reasoned distinction between the two categories, and their finding that the defendant was “guilty but mentally ill” instead of “legally insane” was merely arbitrary.
*600I agree that the statutory definitions of “mentally ill” and “legally insane” are somewhat similar. Both include a person whose understanding of the wrongfulness of his conduct is impaired. Closer examination, however, yields the conclusion that the two definitions refer to differing degrees of impaired understanding. They are therefore sufficiently different to withstand attack on the ground that the jury cannot make a principled application of the statutory definitions.
“Mentally ill” and “legally insane,” while both referring to conditions of mental disturbance, describe two distinct points along the continuum of mental conditions. The difference between the two conditions is aptly explained in the suggested standard jury instructions on the guilty but mentally ill verdict, which have been approved by this court:
[The] definitions [of mentally ill and legally insane] differ ... with regard to the incapacitating effect necessary for legal insanity on the one hand or mental illness on the other. Legal insanity requires that the defendant be incapable either of knowing what judging its wrongfulness. Mental illness requires only that the defendant lack capacity either to appreciate the what he is doing or to obey the law. Loosely speaking, mental illness is the broader term. It covers a greater range of abnormal conditions than legal insanity.2
Commonwealth v. Cain, 349 Pa.Super. 500, 517-18, 503 A.2d 959, 967 (1986) (emphasis in original).
The difference between mental illness and legal insanity with regard to comprehension of the wrongfulness of one’s conduct is a matter of the degree of one’s impairment. The mentally ill defendant in a murder case may exhibit only a limited understanding that killing is generally agreed to be wrong; the legally insane person has no idea whatsoever that killing is considered to be wrong. I find this distinction to be sufficient to permit a jury to differentiate between mental illness and legal insanity, and therefore would up*601hold the constitutionality of the guilty but mentally ill verdict.
Trill claims a second due process infirmity. He asserts that by allowing the judge to instruct the jury on the possible verdict of guilty but mentally ill when a defendant raises the legal insanity defense violates due process. Trill contends that the statute, by its operation, forces a defendant to raise a defense (mental illnesses)3 which he or she does not wish to raise and undercuts the defendant’s ability to present a successful legal insanity defense. Trill asserts that the addition of the instruction on the guilty but mentally ill verdict to the legal insanity instruction gives the jury a chance to return a compromise verdict. The statute does not improperly give to the jury an opportunity to return a irrational or arbitrary compromise verdict, as Trill suggests. Here, the jury must make an initial determination of guilt, or innocence, or insanity based upon the evidence at trial before considering whether to return a guilty but mentally ill verdict. Thus, there is no danger that the jury would be confounded by an irrelevant instruction which would lead to an irrational conviction not based on the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 490 Pa. 187, 191, 415 A.2d 403, 404 (1980).
The appellant makes a due process attack in that a defendant may be forced by the operation of the statute to plead guilty but mentally ill as a consequence of his pleading not guilty by reason of legal insanity when his intention was to limit his plea to not guilty by reason of insanity. The appellant asserts the defendant is forced to undermine his own insanity defense. I disagree.
In the first place, it must be noted that in a plea of not guilty by reason by insanity the defendant acknowledges *602guilt. With the defendant’s guilt acknowledged a jury has three options where a defendant has pled legal insanity. It can find the defendant legally insane, it can find him guilty but mentally ill or it can find him simply guilty. If the jury rejects the plea of legal insanity, the jury is then given the opportunity to determine more precisely the nature of the defendant’s guilt i.e. guilty but mentally or simply guilty. It is much the same as in the usual criminal case where a jury rejects defendant’s plea of not guilty, it finds the defendant guilty. In a situation where the jury rejects the not guilty by reason of insanity, it finds the defendant simply guilty or under this special circumstance it can find the defendant guilty but mentally ill. I see no due process infirmity in giving the jury this latitude.
However, where the defendant pleads legal insanity due process considerations as well as the statutory scheme require that the jury be instructed on the step by step analysis by which they must proceed. First the jury must be instructed to determine if the defendant has proven by the preponderance of the evidence that he is legally insane. If the defendant is successful in so proving, the matter is ended because the defendant has successfully asserted the “not guilty by reason of insanity defense.”
If the defendant fails to prove that he or she is legally insane, it is only then that the jury considers whether the defendant is guilty but mentally ill or simply guilty.
It is important to note that in considering whether to find the defendant guilty but mentally ill or simply guilty, the jury is considering types of guilt, not the questions of innocence or valid defenses. At this point, the label “but mentally ill” may be attached for sentencing, not guilt determination, purposes. Therefore, the defendant is not at all forced to undermine his own, insanity defense.
Finally, Trill claims that the statute is unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to articulate the appropriate standard to be applied under the guilty but mentally ill statute. A plain reading of the statute demonstrates that three ele*603ments must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that the defendant is guilty; 2) that the defendant was mentally ill at the commission of the offense; and, 3) that the defendant was not legally insane at the commission of the offense. The statute is not vague but highly specific. All three elements must be proven by the Commonwealth beyond a reasonable doubt. As to element of guilt, the defendant acknowledges his guilt in the plea of legal insanity. No further burden is placed on the Commonwealth. As to the third element; i.e. legal insanity, I conclude the majority correctly interprets the requirement. The question of legal insanity is resolved at the point when the jury finds that the defendant failed to prove legal insanity. At that juncture, the fact is conclusively established that the defendant is not legally insane.
Lastly, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant is mentally ill beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement, while constitutionally firm, presents a practical problem in its operation. The defendant’s guilt has already been established. Therefore, the Commonwealth, would have little, if any, incentive to prove that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime. Thus, this requirement undermines the statute by rendering rare its actual use.
Furthermore, I believe that the beyond a reasonable doubt requirement is ill-advised for another reason. As a matter of public policy, the standard should be set lower to ensure that defendants requiring treatment for mental illness while serving a sentence receive treatment. It must be borne in mind that guilty but mentally ill does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a more lenient sentence than a defendant who is simply guilty. The sentence stemming from the guilty but mentally ill verdict is a signal that the defendant must be afforded treatment. Proof of mental illness beyond a reasonable doubt is too strict a standard to impose as a condition of the defendant’s receiving treatment.

. An insanity acquitee can be involuntarily committed to a mental institution on the grounds that he poses a “clear and present danger of harm to others or to himself,” 50 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 7301(a) (Purdon Supp.1987), or that "(1) the conduct that led to the criminal proceedings occurred; and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that it will occur again.” Commonwealth v. Helms, 352 Pa.Super. 65, 73, 506 A.2d 1384, 1388 (1986).

. These instructions were in fact given in the case sub judice.

. It is not correct to refer to the statutory provision of guilty but mentally ill as a defense. An analysis of the statute leads to the conclusion that defendants pleading under it are pleading guilty but notifying the Commonwealth that they are mentally ill and therefore in need of treatment. If the defendant is found guilty but mentally ill, the Commonwealth must make provision for treatment in sentencing the defendant.