Court Opinion

ID: 9648142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:04:34.766742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:27.141678
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Roberts:
I dissent. This appeal from an adverse ruling of the court below cannot be fairly characterized as interlocutory, since to do so would effectively and realistically preclude appellant from contesting the right of the Commonwealth to conduct a neuropsychiatric interrogation at this time. Unless appeal lies from the order of the court directing such an interrogation, whatever right defendant may have to bar such an examination would be lost. Cf. Commonwealth v. Kilgallen, 379 Pa. 315, 108 A. 2d 780 (1954).
Since I believe that the present appeal lies, it is appropriate that I express my view on the merits. The record reveals that the reason assigned by the Commonwealth in its application to the court for permission to conduct a neuropsychiatric examination was the possibility that defendant may assert the defense of insanity. However, nothing in the record supports the Commonwealth’s allegation that defendant’s sanity will be put in issue and at this stage of the proceedings the matter is pure supposition.
Accordingly, since the privilege of making a neuropsychiatric examination does not belong to the Commonwealth as of right, I must conclude that the court below erred in granting the application and ordering defendant to submit to such an examination,
*520Unlike tbe case in Commonwealth v. Musto, 348 Pa. 300, 35 A. 2d 307 (1944), there is no indication at this stage of the proceedings other than the unsupported allegation of the Commonwealth that defendant will assert the. defense of insanity or raise the issue of competency to stand trial. If defendant’s sanity or mental capacity does become an issue in the case, the Commonwealth may, at that time, petition the court and assign proper reasons for the allowance of a psychiatric examination such as was involved in Commonwealth v. Mus-to, supra.