In the Interest of: T.B., a Minor Appeal of: T.B. ( 2014 )

J-S40041-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: T.B., IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
A MINOR, PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
APPEAL OF: T.B.,
Appellant No. No. 141 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order January 8, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-54-JV-0001904-2004
CP-54-JV-0001944-2004
BEFORE: BENDER P.J.E., BOWES, AND PANELLA, JJ.
DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
The learned majority correctly recognizes that this Court is required to
preliminarily determine whether an order being appealed from provides this
Court with jurisdiction. Accordingly, we may sua sponte raise and address
whether the order in question is appealable. However, I respectfully
the order falls within Pa.R.A.P. 311(6), which authorizes an interlocutory
appeal from the grant of a new trial in a civil proceeding or a criminal trial in
certain instances.
J-S40041-14
As noted by the majority, this matter involves a complicated and
unusual procedural history. Since the majority has ably detailed that
background, I need not repeat it.1 The following facts are pertinent to my
position. T.B. and the Commonwealth agreed to and did proceed to a civil
commitment hearing. This civil commitment hearing occurred immediately
after the court found a prima facie case that T.B. was in need of involuntary
treatment at his dispositional review hearing. Both the Commonwealth and
T.B. presented expert testimony regarding whether he was in need of
continued involuntary commitment. The parties rested, made arguments,
and at the conclusion of the civil commitment hearing, the court took the
matter under advisement and, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(c)(6),2
indicated it would issue a decision in five days.
Rather than resolve the merits of the matter in five days as required
the civil commitment hearing. Despite the fact that the civil commitment
hearing had already occurred and the evidence received, the court sua
sponte directed that a new civil commitment hearing be held, and requested
____________________________________________
1
A detailed history also may be found at In re T.B., 75 A.3d 485
(Pa.Super. 2013).
2
-2-
J-S40041-14
the presentation of additional evidence. T.B. appealed. Notably, the
Commonwealth does not seek to quash.
The majority correctly finds that this order is not a final order.
However, without discussion,
Memorandum, at 8 n.1. I believe that this order implicates Rule 311(6).
or proceeding
awarding a new trial, or an order in a criminal proceeding awarding a new
trial where the defendant claims that the proper disposition of the matter
view that the t
hearings.
A civil commitment hearing requires that the individual whom the
Commonwealth is seeking to commit receive notice of the hearing and a
copy of the petition for involuntary commitment. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(b)(3).
The person is entitled to counsel, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(b)(3), including the
effective assistance of counsel. See In re Hutchinson, 454 A.2d 1008 (Pa.
1982). If the individual cannot afford an attorney, the court appoints a
lawyer. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(b)(3). The person has the right to an
independent expert in the area of sexually violent behavior, and the court
must provide reasonable fees to secure such an expert if the individual
cannot afford one. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(b)(4).
-3-
J-S40041-14
The individual cannot be compelled to testify, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(c)(1),
and is permitted to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. 42
Pa.C.S. § 6403(c)(2). The court acts as a fact-finder and must determine by
clear and convincing evidence whether involuntary commitment is
warranted. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(d). If the court finds insufficient evidence
has been introduced, it must discharge. See In re K.A.P., 916 A.2d 1152,
1156 n.3 (providing overview of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403 set forth by the Office of
the Attorney General). The commitment hearing is public and a record is
made of the proceeding. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6403(c)(3)(4). All of these elements,
though not dispositive in and of themselves, are traditional aspects of a
criminal trial.3
I do not mean to suggest t
the intent of the Supreme Court in adopting Rule 311(6). That definition,
determination of legal claims in an adversary proceeding[
Dictionary, (7th Ed. 1999), is too broad. In this respect, I recognize that
there are proceedings such as PCRA hearings or pre-trial suppression
hearings that meet several of the same requirements outlined above that
are not trials. Of course, a PCRA proceeding differs from a trial in a host of
respects.
____________________________________________
3
I acknowledge that a civil commitment hearing is not a criminal
proceeding.
-4-
J-S40041-14
Further, this was not a pre-trial matter, which our Supreme Court has
by definition are distinguishable from the actual trial
Commonwealth v. Harmon, 366 A.2d 895, 897 (Pa. 1976). Neither is this
a post-trial proceeding that is seeking to preserve or litigate issues that
occurred before or during trial. Rather, a civil commitment hearing is its
own autonomous proceeding bearing all of the trappings of a trial.
Accordingly, I would hold that a civil commitment hearing is a civil
Cf.
Commonwealth ex rel. Finken v. Roop, 339 A.2d 764, 771 (Pa.Super.
ental liberty that
; Id. at 772-773
deprivation of liberty and the unfortunate stigma which follow involuntary
Since this proceeding was the equivalent of a trial, and the
court below sua sponte directed a new civil commitment hearing be
this appeal.
-5-