In Re: E.J.D. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S60038-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: E.J.D. APPEAL OF: E.J.D. No. 505 MDA 2012 Appeal from the Order Entered February 3, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Civil Division at No(s): 23 Feb 79 MH BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MUNDY, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: Filed: February 12, 2013 E.J.D. appeals from the order entered by the trial court on February 3, 2012 which affirmed the mental health review officer s finding that E.J.D. is severely mentally disabled and in need of continued involuntary commitment at Wernersville State Hospital for a period not to exceed 365 days. For the following reasons, we affirm. The trial court has summarized the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal as follows: On or about November 15, 1972, [E.J.D.], Appellant herein brutally[] murdered both of his parents. [E.J.D.] stabbed his father forty-seven (47) times with a butcher knife and did the same to his mother approximately twelve (12) times. [E.J.D.] was found to be incompetent to stand trial, and was committed to Farview State Hospital for treatment. [E.J.D. s] mental status was reviewed at appropriate hearings in J-S60038-12 both 1973 and 1974, after which hearings he was recommitted to Farview State Hospital, having been found incompetent to stand trial. In March of 1975, the Superintendent of Farview State Hospital petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County for Defendant s discharge from that facility. After hearing held on March 24, 1975, the Defendant [E.J.D.] was determined to be capable of standing trial, and he was committed to Berks County Prison. On June 10, 1975, jury trial commenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Pennsylvania, wherein [E.J.D.] was charged with the November 1972 murders of his mother and father. On June 13, 1975, the jury empanelled in [E.J.D. s] case returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity to both charges. On June 20, 1975, a petition was filed and hearing was held on the question of whether [E.J.D.] was severely mentally disabled and required involuntary inpatient treatment for his condition. President Judge Eshelman who conducted the hearing, determined that [E.J.D.] was severely mentally disabled and in need of involuntary inpatient treatment and ordered his commitment to Farview State Hospital. Beginning in 1976 or 1977, yearly hearings were held pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act in order to determine whether [E.J.D.] required further involuntary inpatient treatment. Annually since that time, [E.J.D.] has been adjudged to be severely mentally disabled and a clear and present danger to himself and others, and in need of involuntary inpatient treatment. In either 1976 or 1977, [E.J.D.] was transferred from Farview State Hospital to Wernersville State Hospital, where he has resided since. On January 13, 2012, hearing was held pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act before Mental Health Review Officer Brett A. Huckabee, Esq., to determine whether [E.J.D.] remained in need of continued involuntary treatment. Review Officer Huckabee, after hearing testimony from Dr. Sasikala Ravi, and from [E.J.D.], determined that [E.J.D.] remained in need of continued involuntary inpatient treatment. Appeal of that order was taken to this Court. On February 3, 2012, after review of the record before Review Officer -2- J-S60038-12 Huckabee, we affirmed the Review Officer s decision to the effect that [E.J.D.] remains severely mentally disabled and in need of continued involuntary commitment and treatment for a period not to exceed three hundred sixty-five (365) days. On or about March 5, 2012, [E.J.D.], by and through is counsel, filed an appeal to the Superior Court from this Court s order of February 3, 2012. On March 7, 2012, this Court ordered [E.J.D.] to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)(1). On or about March 26, 2012, [E.J.D.] through his counsel, filed a statement of matters complained of on appeal. The statement raises a single issue: 1. The Court erred in finding that [E.J.D.] was severely mentally disabled and in need of continued involuntary commitment under 50 P.S. § 7304(g)(2)(ii), where there was insufficient evidence to establish that [E.J.D.] would still be a clear and present danger to himself or others if he were released, as the only basis for the doctor s opinion to the contrary was [E.J.D. s] past history since his hospitalization. Trial Court Opinion, 6/13/2012 at 1-2. We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, as well as the arguments provided by counsel in their respective briefs, and we find no basis upon which to disturb the decision of the trial court. Therefore, we affirm the order based upon the comprehensive analysis provided by the learned Judge Paul M. Yatron in his Rule 1925(a) opinion entered on June 13, 2012. The parties shall attach a redacted copy of the trial court s Rule 1925(a) opinion in the event of further proceedings. Order affirmed. -3-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.