Commonwealth Ex Rel. McGurrin v. Shovlin

257 A.2d 902, 435 Pa. 474, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 749
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 9, 1969
DocketAppeal, 100
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 257 A.2d 902 (Commonwealth Ex Rel. McGurrin v. Shovlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth Ex Rel. McGurrin v. Shovlin, 257 A.2d 902, 435 Pa. 474, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 749 (Pa. 1969).

Opinions

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Since 1963, William Joseph McGurrin has been confined in the Farview State Hospital at Waymart, Pennsylvania, under order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lackawanna County. The order of commitment was entered by the court following receipt of a report from a Sanity Commission1 stating that McGurrin was men[477]*477tally ill and of criminal tendencies. The Commission, consisting of two psychiatrists and one attorney, arrived at its conclusions following a hearing conducted in accordance with Art. III, Section 327 of the Act of 1951, supra, 50 P.S. §1202. At this hearing McGurrin was present but did not have the assistance of legal counsel.

In the present proceedings, McGurrin seeks his release from confinement by way of habeas corpus proceedings instituted in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County.2 He contends that under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the presence of legal counsel on his behalf at the hearing before the Sanity Commission was an absolute requirement and since said hearing was conducted in the absence thereof, the proceedings were constitutionally invalid.

We will not and do not reach the constitutional question. It is the conclusion of the Court that in every case where a person is convicted of or charged with crime, and is thought to be mentally ill; and where a commission is appointed by the appropriate court to examine that person; and where a hearing is conducted before the court-appointed commission; then, in such cases, it is desirable and wise that such person be represented by legal counsel. Under our supervisory powers, we declare this to be the policy of the courts [478]*478in this Commonwealth and the course to be followed in such cases.

The orders of the Superior Court and the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County are therefore vacated and the record is remanded to the court of original jurisdiction. If within 45 days proceedings are not instituted and conducted consonant with this opinion, the writ is directed to issue.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Davis
479 A.2d 1041 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)
In Re Commitment of Hutchinson
421 A.2d 261 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Commonwealth v. McQuaid
347 A.2d 465 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Finken v. Roop
339 A.2d 764 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Commonwealth v. Klinger
258 A.2d 668 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Commonwealth ex rel. Doyne v. Shovlin
257 A.2d 881 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. McGurrin v. Shovlin
257 A.2d 902 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 A.2d 902, 435 Pa. 474, 1969 Pa. LEXIS 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-mcgurrin-v-shovlin-pa-1969.