88 N.E.3d 862
Mass.2018Background
- Defendant (Edward Curran) charged with indecent assault and battery (qualifying sex offense) after groping a nurse while in a residential treatment program.
- Defendant found incompetent to stand trial; criminal charge dismissed and he was committed; Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 123A petition seeking civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person (SDP).
- Under G. L. c. 123A, § 15, a judge (without jury) must determine whether an incompetent person "did commit the act or acts charged" using criminal-trial-like procedures and protections (except jury trial and right not to be tried while incompetent).
- At the § 15 hearing the defendant sought to admit expert testimony that he lacked criminal responsibility (insanity/diminished capacity); Commonwealth moved to preclude such evidence as irrelevant to whether the acts were committed.
- Trial judge excluded the expert testimony; defendant obtained interlocutory review and the Supreme Judicial Court granted transfer to decide whether § 15 permits a defendant to raise lack-of-criminal-responsibility defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a § 15 hearing allows evidence that the defendant lacked criminal responsibility (e.g., insanity) | § 15 "determine whether the person did commit the act or acts charged" refers only to conduct (actus reus); mens rea/criminal-responsibility is not relevant | § 15 incorporates "all rights available to criminal defendants" (except trial/jury) so defendant may present defenses including lack of criminal responsibility | Court held § 15 permits an incompetent defendant to raise any defenses available at a criminal trial, including lack of criminal responsibility; exclusion of expert testimony reversed |
| Whether reading § 15 to allow lack-of-responsibility defenses conflicts with SDP civil purpose | Limiting inquiry to conduct preserves distinction between civil SDP process and criminal guilt | Allowing defenses preserves due process protections Burgess relied on and avoids absurd disparity between competent and incompetent defendants | Court found defense inclusion required to effectuate legislative intent and due process; statute interpreted to include defenses |
| Whether statutory wording "act or acts" precludes consideration of intent | "Act" choice shows focus on conduct, not crime; mens rea not subject of § 15 | Statutory importation of criminal-trial rights (including proof beyond a reasonable doubt and right to present defenses) implies intent-related determinations where needed to prove the charged act | Court rejected narrow reading; mens rea/defenses may be relevant because elements of the offense (including intent) are part of proving the act charged |
| Whether evidence of lack of criminal responsibility, if admitted, must be treated differently in SDP proceedings | Such evidence is irrelevant to SDP and should be excluded or tightly limited | Evidence is part of defendant's right to defend and may bear on whether acts were committed beyond a reasonable doubt | Court allows the evidence; trial court retains discretion on admissibility and limits, but exclusion here was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burgess, 450 Mass. 366 (2008) (§ 15 supplies many criminal-trial rights to incompetent defendants and satisfies due process by protecting against erroneous deprivation of liberty)
- Commonwealth v. Nieves, 446 Mass. 583 (2006) (judge may make predicate factual determinations regarding actions that would ordinarily constitute a crime)
- Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967) (test for not guilty by reason of insanity: lack of substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct)
- Commonwealth v. Bruno, 432 Mass. 489 (2000) (c.123A is civil, not criminal, and aims to protect the public and provide treatment)
- Commonwealth v. Marzilli, 457 Mass. 64 (2010) (elements of indecent assault and battery include intent to touch and absence of justification or excuse)