Com. v. Smerconish, A. , 112 A.3d 1260 ( 2015 )

J-A34036-14
2015 Pa. Super. 59
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ADAM SMERCONISH
Appellant No. 882 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered April 30, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Criminal Division at No: 44-CV-1468-13
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STABILE, JJ.
OPINION BY STABILE, J.: FILED MARCH 24, 2015
Appellant, Adam Smerconish, appeals from the April 30, 2014 order
entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County denying his request
to expunge mental health records relating to a 2004 involuntary
commitment pursuant to section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act,
50 P.S. § 7302.1 Following review, we affirm.
The trial court explained:
In the instant case, Appellant petitioned for restoration of
firearm rights pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6105(f)(1) and
review by court pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6111.1(g)(2). The
court granted Appellant’s petition for restoration of firearm rights
____________________________________________
1
The April 30 order denied Appellant’s expunction request but granted his
request under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105(f)(1) to reinstate his right to possess
firearms. The grant of the reinstatement of his right to possess firearms is
not challenged in this appeal.
J-A34036-14
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6105(f)(1) as the court determined
that the applicant may possess a firearm without risk to the
applicant or any other person. However, the court did not grant
expungement of Appellant’s involuntar[y] commitment pursuant
to section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act as . . .
18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6105(f)(1) is not a proper vehicle for expunging
such records. Rather, the court reviewed Appellant’s
involuntar[y] commitment pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A.
[§] 6111.1(g)(2) to determine whether Appellant was entitled to
expungement. 18 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6111.1(g)(2) provides:
(2) A person who is involuntarily committed pursuant to
section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act may
petition the court to review the sufficiency of the evidence
upon which the commitment was based. If the court
determines that the evidence upon which the involuntary
commitment was based was insufficient, the court shall
order that the record of the commitment submitted to the
Pennsylvania State Police be expunged. A petition filed
under this subsection shall toll the 60-day period set forth
under Section 6105(a)(2).
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 6111.1 (West)
The court denied Appellant’s petition for review pursuant to 18
Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6111.1(g)(2) as the court determined that there
was sufficient evidence [for] the involuntary commitment based
upon the involuntary commitment paperwork, all [of] which
documents were admitted without objection. Appellant was
admitted to the Lewistown Hospital on a 302 commitment after
making threats to commit suicide. Appellant emailed his sister
through the internet about his feelings of not wanting to live as a
failure. Appellant was a student at Penn State University and
had failing grades. Appellant had gained sixty (60) pounds.
Appellant admitted to sending e-mails to his sister exploring
painless ways that he could die. Appellant also admitted that
after that time he went on to the internet and read about suicide
and decided that he was frightened of such acts. Appellant was
diagnosed with Major Depression, recurrent with suicidal ideation
and Eating disorder, NOS with binge behaviors on Axis 1 of the
DSM. Patient was diagnosed with personality disorder with
narcissistic traits on Axis II of the DSM. Significantly, Appellant
had a Global Assessment of Functioning of 30.
-2-
J-A34036-14
Bruce N. Eimer, PhD., in his report, asserts that Appellant
was subject to a “rendition” alleging that Appellant’s involuntary
commitment was the result of [hearsay], and “he said, she said.”
Dr. Eimer also makes a due process argument by scrutinizing the
treatment administered and the protocol followed after Appellant
was involuntarily committed and the fact that Appellant was
discharged within 72 hours, the maximum time allotted under a
302 commitment. However, the court does not find Dr. Eimer’s
argument persuasive. With regard to the alleged hearsay and
“he said, she said,” the 302 petition states that Appellant instant
messaged his sister threatening twelve (12) times to kill himself.
Appellant admitted to these threats. As such, the court finds
that there was sufficient evidence for the involuntary
commitment. Further, the treatment administered and the
protocols followed after Appellant was involuntarily committed
and the fact that Appellant was discharged within 72 hours is
irrelevant to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to
involuntarily commit Appellant.
Trial Court Opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) (T.C.O.), 7/3/14, at 2-3
(emphasis and italics in original) (references to hearing exhibits omitted). 2
Appellant presents three issues for this Court’s consideration:
I. Did the learned trial judge err in failing to expunge
[Appellant’s] mental health commitment?
II. Did the learned trial judge err in following [In re Keyes]
in that the requirements of Keyes were mere dicta?
III. Did the learned trial judge err in allowing hearsay and
hearsay on hearsay in evidence at the time of the within
____________________________________________
2
We remind counsel for Appellant of the requirement to include in his brief a
copy of the Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(11). In addition, Appellant is required to provide a
statement of both the scope of review and the standard of review. See
Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(3). Appellant’s brief includes neither required matter.
We also take this opportunity to remind counsel for Appellee of the
requirement for lettering in appellate briefs to be no smaller than 14 point in
the text and 12 point in the footnotes. See Pa.R.A.P. 124(a)(4).
-3-
J-A34036-14
matter to support the Pennsylvania State Police’s position
that [Appellant] has not satisfied the requirements in [In
re Keyes]?
Appellant’s Brief at 3. “Our well-settled standard of review in cases
involving a motion for expunction is whether the trial court abused its
discretion.” In re Keyes, 83 A.3d 1016, 1022 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing
Commonwealth v. A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266, 1268 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
In his first issue, Appellant questions whether the trial court erred in
failing to expunge his mental health commitment records. Recognizing our
standard of review, we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion
by concluding the records could not be expunged. We conclude there was
no abuse of discretion.
As noted in the quoted excerpt from the trial court opinion, the
process for expunging mental health records is explained in 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 6111.1(g)(2). That subsection provides that an individual seeking
expunction of involuntary commitment records may petition the court “to
review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the commitment is based.”
In this case, Appellant requested a review of the commitment evidence in
conjunction with his request to have his right to possess firearms restored.
Appellant argues that evidence upon which his commitment was based
was insufficient. He contends there was no proof, as required by 50 P.S.
§ 7301(b)(2)(ii), that he “made threats to commit suicide and [] committed
acts which are in furtherance of the threat of suicide.” Appellant’s Brief at
-4-
J-A34036-14
17 (citations omitted).3 The record does not support his assertion. Officer
Scicchitano, a 25-year veteran of the State College Borough Police
Department, testified that he was instructed by dispatch to contact
Appellant’s father who, in turn, referred the officer to Appellant’s mother.
Appellant’s mother informed the officer that her daughter, Appellant’s sister,
reported Appellant sent her 12 different “instant messages” in which he
threatened to kill himself and that he was looking for painless ways to do it.
Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/21/14, at 59. When the officer arrived at
Appellant’s fraternity house, he explained to Appellant why he was there,
“specifically [telling] him I was there because he had threatened to kill
himself.” Id. at 60. Appellant “admitted to saying that. He said he
probably shouldn’t have – something to the effect he shouldn’t have said
things like that or in that fashion.” Id. As recorded in the History and
Physical Examination record from Lewistown Hospital, Appellant confirmed
he sent emails to his sister about exploring ways he could die and admitted
he had gone on the Internet to read about suicide, but decided he was
frightened of suicidal acts. N.T., 4/21/14, Exhibit PSP 1. Appellant
____________________________________________
3
50 P.S. § 7301(b)((2)(ii) provides, “Clear and present danger to himself
shall be shown by establishing that within the past 30 days . . . the person
has attempted suicide and that there is the reasonable probability of suicide
unless adequate treatment is afforded under this act. For the purposes of
this subsection, a clear and present danger may be demonstrated by the
proof that the person has made threats to commit suicide and has
committed acts which are in furtherance of the threat to commit suicide.”
-5-
J-A34036-14
acknowledged that his instant message threats to kill himself were as recent
as the night before the officer arrived at the fraternity house to see him.
N.T., 4/21/14, Exhibit PSP 4.
In Commonwealth v. Jackson, 62 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super. 2013), this
Court recognized:
The leading case on the sufficiency of a 302 warrant is In re
J.M., 556 Pa. 63, 726 A.2d 1041 (1999). Our Supreme Court
held therein that the standard for evaluating the validity of such
documents is whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that a
person is severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate
treatment, a standard that is “clearly less exacting than the
probable cause standard.” Id. at 1049. Such a warrant may be
based upon hearsay “in light of the emergency nature,
therapeutic purpose and short duration” of a section 302
commitment. Id. at 1046–47 n. 9. The “guiding inquiry” is
whether, “when viewing the surrounding facts and
circumstances, a reasonable person in the position of the
applicant for a section 7302 warrant could have concluded that
an individual was severely mentally disabled and in need of
immediate treatment.” Id.
The issue of whether allegations in an application were sufficient
to establish an act in furtherance of a threat to commit harm
was addressed by this Court in In re R.D., 739 A.2d 548, 555
(Pa. Super. 1999). We held therein that an elderly woman's act
of picking up her cane in an effort to hit another, together with
verbal threats of harm, constituted an “act in furtherance of the
threat to commit harm,” as contemplated by the statute.
Id. at 439.
Based on the record, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that
there was sufficient evidence for an involuntary commitment. The twelve
instant messages Appellant sent to his sister provided a basis for concluding
Appellant was severely mentally disabled and in need of immediate
-6-
J-A34036-14
treatment. His online research seeking painless methods of committing
suicide constituted an act in furtherance of the threat to commit harm. We
find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court for denying
Appellant’s petition to expunge the records from that commitment.
Therefore, Appellant’s first issue fails for lack of merit.
In his second issue, Appellant asserts that that the trial judge erred in
following Keyes, supra, because the requirements of Keyes were dicta. In
Keyes, a state trooper was involuntarily committed to a mental health
facility, first under 50 P.S. § 73024 and subsequently under the more
restrictive provisions of 50 P.S. § 7303.5 As a result, Keyes was barred from
possessing firearms under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
More than two years after his commitment, Keyes sought to have his
firearms rights reinstated. The trial court reinstated his firearms rights but
did not expunge Keyes’ involuntary commitment record. After retaining new
counsel, Keyes sought expunction of the records under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
6105(f)(1). The trial court denied the request based on this Court’s decision
in In re Jacobs, 15 A.3d 509 (Pa. Super. 2011), and stated, “subsection
6105(f)(1) conveys no such authority. Subsection 6105(f)(1) is intended
____________________________________________
4
50 P.S. § 7302 provides for involuntary emergency examinations and
treatment authorized by a physician not to exceed 120 hours.
5
50 P.S. § 7303 authorizes extended involuntary emergency treatment
certified by a judge or mental health review officer not to exceed 20 days.
-7-
J-A34036-14
solely for the restoration of the right to possess firearms, not for the
expunction of a record of involuntary commitment under the [Mental Health
Procedures Act].” Keyes, 83 A.3d at 1022.
Appellant attempts to distinguish the facts of his case from those in
Keyes, noting Keyes was committed under 50 P.S. § 7303 as well as 50 P.S.
§ 7302 whereas Appellant was committed only under the less restrictive 50
P.S. § 7302. However, Appellant ignores the fact that 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105
provides the procedure for reinstating the right to possess firearms, not for
expunction of records, which is governed by Pa.C.S.A. § 6111.6 As this
Court explained in Keyes:
First, section 6105(f)(1) of the Uniform Firearms Act makes no
mention of expunction of records; rather, the statute is clearly
directed as a vehicle for the restoration of the right to possess
firearms by those who[] have previously been involuntarily
committed under the [Mental Health Procedures Act]. When the
Legislature chose to provide for the expunction of mental health
records under the Uniform Firearms Act, it specifically did so in
section 6111.1(g) of the Act.
Second, if we interpreted section 6105(f)(1) as conveying a
broad power to expunge mental health records, it would render
section 6111.1(g) mere surplusage because the power to
expunge mental health records thereunder would already be
provided for by section 6105(f)(1). “Basic rules of statutory
construction set forth that statutes shall be construed, if
____________________________________________
6
As reflected in the excerpt of the statute quoted by the trial court above,
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111(2) provides the process by which a person involuntarily
committed under 50 P.S. § 7302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act may
petition the court to review the evidence upon which the commitment was
based in an effort to have the record of the commitment expunged.
-8-
J-A34036-14
possible, to give effect to all its provisions and that the
legislature did not intend any statutory language to exist as
mere surplusage.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 72 A.3d 652,
662 (Pa. Super. 2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Velez, 51
A.3d 260, 265 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted) and citing
1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1925(a) and (b). Appellant's proposed
interpretation of section 6105(f) of the Uniform Firearms Act
would improperly render another section of that Act as mere
surplusage.
...
In sum, we find that section 6105(f)(1) does not provide
authority for expunging mental health commitment records. The
only authority for doing so under the Uniform Firearms Act is
located under section 6111.1(g). Our interpretation of these
sections is the only way that both can be given full meaning
without rendering either section superfluous.
Id. at 1023-24.
We reject Appellant’s assertion that this Court’s statements regarding
§§ 6105(f)(1) and 6111.1(g) are merely dicta. We find no abuse of
discretion or error of law on the part of the trial court for relying on Keyes in
determining that § 6105(f)(1) did not authorize expunction of involuntary
commitment records. Appellant’s second issue does not provide any basis
for relief.
In his third issue, Appellant complains that the trial court improperly
admitted during Appellant’s hearing both hearsay and what he terms
“hearsay on hearsay.” Appellant’s Brief at 21-23. Addressing a hearsay
challenge, this Court has recognized:
[T]he standard of review of a trial court’s admission or exclusion
of evidence is well established and very narrow: Admission of
evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial
-9-
J-A34036-14
court, and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial
court clearly abused its discretion. Not merely an error in
judgment, an abuse of discretion occurs when the law is
overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is
manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence on record.
Commonwealth v. Akbar, 91 A.3d 227, 235 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal
citations omitted).
Appellant’s hearsay argument fails for a number of reasons. First, to
the extent the hearsay and “hearsay on hearsay” evidence Appellant
challenges were statements reflected on the application for commitment
entered into evidence by stipulation as PSP 4, those statements were
admissible by virtue of the stipulation of the parties agreeing to admission of
the document. Second, in In re R.D., 739 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 1999), this
Court considered the purpose of the Mental Health Procedures Act and
discussed its due process implications, stating:
The legislature’s purpose in enacting the Mental Health
Procedures Act was “to assure the availability of adequate
treatment to persons who are mentally ill” and “to make
voluntary and involuntary treatment available where the need is
great and its absence could result in serious harm to the
mentally ill person or to others.” Mental Health Procedures Act,
§ 102. See also In re McMullins, 315 Pa. Super. 531, 462
A.2d 718, 722 (1983). To achieve these objectives within the
constraints of due process “the scheme adopted by the
legislature here envisions that more extensive procedural or ‘due
process’ protections will apply as the amount of time a person
may be deprived of liberty increases above a bare minimum.”
Matter of Seegrist, 517 Pa. 568, 574, 539 A.2d 799, 802
(1988). The resulting progression in sections 302, 303, and
304, evinces the legislature’s clear concern that the procedural
protections afforded our citizens reflect the extent of the
- 10 -
J-A34036-14
deprivation of liberty at stake. In re Hancock, 719 A.2d 1053,
1057 (Pa. Super. 1998).
Section 302, which provides for involuntary emergency
examination and treatment, allows confinement of the patient
for up to 120 hours upon certification by a physician, or
authorization by the county mental health administrator. Mental
Health Procedures Act, § 302(a), (d). Though action by the
administrator requires issuance of a warrant, “[i]n light of the
emergency nature, therapeutic purpose and short duration” of a
section 302 commitment, the warrant need not be supported by
probable cause and may be based upon hearsay. In re J.M.,
556 Pa. [63, 75–76 n. 9], 726 A.2d [1041, 1046–47 n. 9].
Id. at 555. See also Jackson, 62 A.2d at 439.
Appellant was committed under section 302. Appellant complains that
Officer Scicchitano was allowed to testify about his telephone conversations
with Appellant’s father and with Appellant’s mother during which information
was conveyed about threatening instant messages Appellant sent to his
sister. The testimony was offered at the hearing to explain the officer’s role
in the issuance of the warrant for Appellant’s section 302 commitment. 7 As
____________________________________________
7
In Akbar, which involved a challenge to statements explaining the course
of police conduct, this Court explained:
Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Commonwealth v.
Dent, 837 A.2d 571, 577 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied,
581 Pa. 671, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004); Pa.R.E. 801(c).
Nevertheless, certain out-of-court statements offered to explain
the course of police conduct are admissible; such statements do
not constitute hearsay because they are offered not for the truth
of the matters asserted but merely to show the information upon
which police acted. Dent, supra at 577–79. See also
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 11 -
J-A34036-14
this Court recognized in In re R.D., supra, a warrant for a section 302
commitment need not be supported by probable cause and may be based on
hearsay.
Finally, the trial court noted it “relied solely on the involuntary
commitment paperwork in making its determination that there was sufficient
evidence for the involuntary commitment.” T.C.O., 7/3/14, at 4. Therefore,
even if it could be determined that the trial court erred in allowing the
testimony, any error is harmless. Appellant is not entitled to relief based on
his third issue.
Because Appellant is not entitled to relief on any of his three issues,
we shall affirm the order of the trial court.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 489 Pa. 559, 414 A.2d 1032 (1980)
(holding content of police radio call did not constitute hearsay
where Commonwealth introduced call to explain police conduct
and not to prove truth of content of tape).
Akbar, 91 A.3d at 236. Although not exactly on point with the present
case, the same analysis is appropriately applied here where the officer was
not offering statements for the truth of the matters asserted but rather to
show the information upon which the police acted in the course of issuing
the warrant for Appellant’s commitment.
- 12 -
J-A34036-14
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/24/2015
- 13 -