Com. v. Byrd

• Citation: 219 A.2d 293,421 Pa. 513
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Curtis BYRD, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 02 May 1966
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 293

219 A.2d 293 421 Pa. 513 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Curtis BYRD, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. May 2, 1966.

[421 Pa. 514] William H. Brown, III, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William J. Stevens, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

BELL, Chief Justice.

On November 23, 1964, defendant Byrd was arrested and charged with the murder of two persons; he was also charged with aggravated assault and assault and battery with intent to murder a third person. On January 5, 1965, a true bill of indictment was returned [421 Pa. 515] by the Grand Jury on all of the charges set forth above. On September 8, 1965, defendant's petition for a psychiatric examination was granted by the Court of Quarter Sessions. Thereafter, the Commonwealth filed an application for a neuro-psychiatric examination of the defendant. On January 7, 1966, the lower Court granted the petition of the Commonwealth and order the defendant to submit to such examination subject to the important limitation that he not be compelled to answer any questions propounded to him

Page 294

by those making the examination. From that Order defendant took this appeal.

Defendant first strongly contends that to require him to submit to such an examination is violative of the Fifth Amendment, which ordains and protects his right against self-incrimination. This Court decided in Commonwealth v. Musto, 348 Pa. 300, 35 A.2d 307, that such an examination does not violate a defendant's right against self-incrimination, provided that, as in the present Order, he is not compelled to answer any questions propounded to him. In Commonwealth v. Musto, Chief Justice Horace Stern, speaking for a unanimous Court said (pages 305--307, 35 A.2d page 311):

'Realizing that an attempt would be made to prove defendant insane at the time of the murder, the district attorney obtained permission from the court to have alienists examine him in prison. His counsel found fault with this proceeding on the ground that it constituted a violation of defendant's constitutional right not to be compelled to give evidence against himself. While the exact question thus presented hs apparently not been ruled upon by either of our appellate courts, it has arisen in many other jurisdictions, and these have quite uniformly held that the constitutional immunity from self-incrimination does not apply to a compulsory examination to determine the prisoner's physical or mental condition for the purpose of testifying[421 Pa. 516] in regard thereto, provided, of course, that he be not compelled to answer any questions propounded to him by those making the examination. The purpose of the constitutional provision is to prohibit the...