Court Opinion

ID: 9757120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:19:20.349163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:35.080862
License: Public Domain

*316CERCONE, Judge,
dissenting:
The instant appeal arises from the adjudication of the Juvenile Court of Allegheny County that appellant, Scott McNaughton, was a delinquent child as defined by The Juvenile Act, 11 P.S. § 50-102 (Supp.1977). As a result of this adjudication, and upon the recommendation of a psychologist, the court committed appellant to Pennsylvania George Junior Republic. The only issue raised on appeal is whether certain records compiled by the staff of the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC) were sufficiently authenticated to be admitted into evidence under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 28 P.S. §§ 91a-91d (1958). The facts are as follows:
On Friday, February 20, 1976, Scott’s mother found an unloaded .22 calibre pistol in the pocket of Scott’s coat. Because Scott, who was thirteen years old, had previously been adjudicated delinquent for armed robbery, Mrs. McNaughton turned the pistol over to Scott’s probation officer. The following Monday, February 23rd, Scott’s probation officer took him to the Shuman Detention Center in Pittsburgh where Scott was given a hearing on February 25th. Subsequently, from March 1 to March 8, 1976, Scott was hospitalized at WPIC for psychological testing and evaluation, then returned to the Shuman Center. During his stay at WPIC Scott stole from the infirmary hypodermic needles which were discovered in his possession along with a quantity of morphine. At the time of this discovery Scott was attempting to teach another patient how to inject the drug. According to the treating physician, Scott admitted all these facts when he was caught with the contraband.
At the delinquency hearing the Commonwealth sought to prove facts related to the drug incident, not by the testimony of the treating physician who found Scott in possession of the contraband and heard his admission, but by offering the physician’s report thereof as a hearsay excep*317tion under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, supra. The report was authenticated at the hearing by Dr. Kenneth Director, the resident in charge of the in-patient ward into which Scott had been admitted at WPIC. Over the objection of defense counsel the court admitted the record and based its adjudication of delinquency largely upon that report. I find no error in the court’s admitting the report and would affirm.1
At the outset it should be noted that, if the report did not fall within the scope of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the instant adjudication of delinquency would be reversed. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) guaranteed juveniles charged with crimes in delinquency proceedings numerous of the constitutional rights which would attach in an ordinary criminal prosecution, including the right to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. Furthermore, The Juvenile Act, 11 P.S. § 50-318 (Supp.1977) codifies these guarantees and, in pertinent part in subsection (b), provides:
“An extrajudicial statement, if obtained in the course of a violation of this act or which could be constitutionally inadmissible in a criminal proceeding, shall not be used against [a child charged with a delinquent act].”
Hence, an adjudication of delinquency may not rest on hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution.
In the instant case, however, the reports of the staff physicians would be admissible in a criminal proceeding because they fall within the hearsay exception incorporated in the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 28 P.S. §91b, which provides as follows:
“A record of an act, condition or event shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of *318its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.”
To authenticate the report of the drug incident, the Commonwealth called Dr. Director who established the identity and mode of the report’s preparation, and that it was made in the ordinary course of the hospital's business, at or near the time of the event by a staff physician who had observed the event. Within the discretion vested in the hearing court by the business records act the court accepted the report into evidence. Looking to the criteria of Paxos v. Jarka Corp., 314 Pa. 148, 171 A. 468 (1934) the court in the instant case found: (1) that the report was made contemporaneously with the conduct it purports to relate; (2) that, at the time of making, it was impossible to anticipate reasons which might subsequently arise for making a false entry in the original; (3) that the person responsible for making the entry was knowledgeable. See also Rockwell v. Stone, 404 Pa. 561, 572-73, 173 A.2d 48 (1961). Since these findings were based upon the testimony of the physician in charge, Dr. Director, the hearing court properly admitted the report into evidence.
Nevertheless, the plurality opinion argues that the report should not have been admitted unless the treating physician were present to testify as to its veracity. Relying on cases such as Commonwealth v. McCloud, 457 Pa. 310, 322 A.2d 653 (1974) and Commonwealth v. DiGiacomo, 463 Pa. 449, 345 A.2d 605 (1975), the plurality weaves to the conclusion that Scott McNaughton was denied his constitutional right to confront his accusers. This conclusion rests upon a misconstruction of the contents of the treating physician’s report and a misapprehension of the law of evidence.
First, the report as read into the record by Doctor Director contained no medical opinion—the report in material *319part related what the treating physician saw and heard. He did not opine that Scott possessed morphine, Scott told him he did. Scott also admitted that he had stolen the hypodermic syringes, that he had taken morphine previously, and that the morphine in question was brought to him by a friend. Hence, DiGiacomo, supra, and McCloud, supra, do not indicate that reversal in this case is appropriate; on the contrary, those cases fortify our conclusion that receiving the report into evidence was correct. Both DiGiacomo and McCloud recognize that medical reports are admissible into evidence under the Business Records as Evidence Act when they relate, inter alia, the symptoms manifested by a patient. From a psychological viewpoint Scott’s conduct at WPIC was a symptom of his state of mind, and the incident was used by the physicians at WPIC for diagnostic as well as prognostic purposes. As such, under the rationale of DiGia-como and McCloud, the report was properly received into evidence at the delinquency hearing.
Second, relying on McCormick, Evidence 726 (2d ed. 1972), the plurality suggests that to the extent the report relates Scott’s conclusion that he possessed morphine, the report was inadmissible because Scott was not an expert competent to draw that conclusion or offer that opinion. This is incorrect, of course, because Scott was a party to the delinquency proceedings, so his extrajudicial statements were admissions. The commentators, including Dean McCormick, agree that admissions in the form of opinions are not susceptible to objection under the “Opinion Rule.” See, e. g., McCormick, Evidence 631-33 (2d ed. 1972); Conrad, Modern Trial Evidence § 463 (1956); Henry, Pennsylvania Evidence §§ 71, 77 (1953). As Professor Wigmore has stated in his brilliant treatise on evidence:
“A primary use and effect of an admission is to discredit a party’s claim by exhibiting his inconsistent other utterances. . . It is therefore immaterial whether these other utterances would have been independently receivable as the testimony of a qualified witness. It is their *320inconsistency with the party’s present claim that gives them logical force.” IV Wigmore on Evidence § 1053, p. 12 (3rd ed. 1940).
Thus it is that the “Opinion Rule” does not apply to admissions: “To extend the arbitrary trivialities of the Opinion Rule to parties’ admissions would be the extreme of futility.” Id. at p. 15. Accordingly, Pennsylvania has expressly rejected the notion that an admission is objectionable if it contains an opinion the speaking party was not demonstrably competent to make. Beardsley v. Weaver, 402 Pa. 130, 166 A.2d 529 (1961); Salvitti v. Throppe, 343 Pa. 642, 23 A.2d 445 (1942).2
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the order of the court below.
PRICE and VAN der VOORT, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

. The charges concerning possession of the .22 calibre pistol were dismissed largely because the gun was inoperable.

. Judge Spaeth’s concurring opinion raises the question of whether even if the medical report in the instant case falls within the provisions of the Business Records as Evidence Act, appellant was nevertheless denied his constitutional right to confront his accuser. In other words Judge Spaeth’s opinion suggests that in some cases the Business Records as Evidence Act, if strictly followed, can operate unconstitutionally. However, as academically interesting as this argument may be, appellant did not raise it. Appellant’s argument is that the evidence of the medical report in the instant case did not conform to the requirements of the Act; therefore, appellant was denied his right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. Obviously, the argument which appellant raises on appeal bears at best only superficial resemblance to the argument Judge Spaeth raises to reverse the order of the lower court. No doubt that is why appellant’s brief cites none of the cases Judge Spaeth finds persuasive. In any event Wiegand v. Wiegand, 461 Pa. 482, 337 A.2d 256 (1975) condemns the practice of courts’ raising constitutional arguments which the parties themselves have not employed. Perhaps my opinion has already explored appellant’s case more expansively than appellant’s brief commends. However, on the issue which Judge Spaeth finds dispositive, appellant’s brief leaves us utterly in darkness. Therefore, I do not deem it proper to discuss the issue.