Commonwealth v. Hanright
989 N.E.2d 883
Mass.2013Background
- Indictments include first-degree murder and armed robbery stemming from a jewelry counter robbery in Woburn where a police officer was killed.
- Defendant notified the Commonwealth of intent to offer mental-state testimony; the expert would rely, in part, on his statements about mental condition.
- Commonwealth sought a court-ordered psychiatric examination and production of the defendant’s medical/psychiatric records for the examiner.
- Motion judge granted the examination but denied access to treatment records; case petitioned to county court and reserved to full court.
- Question presented: whether Rule 14(b)(2)(B) permits pretrial discovery of the defendant’s treatment records for the rule 14(b)(2)(B) examiner.
- Court interprets Rule 14(b)(2)(B) to permit discovery of treatment records to the extent needed for a meaningful examination and complete expert reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 14(b)(2)(B) permit pretrial discovery of medical records? | Commonwealth argues records aid reliable examination. | Rule 14(b)(2)(B) only allows an examiner interview and tests, not broad records. | Yes; records discoverable for a meaningful examination. |
| Is there a waiver of privilege when defendant seeks a court-ordered examination? | Waiver occurs when defendant offers testimony and undergoes examination. | Waiver is limited; patients retain some privilege. | Waiver applies to scope of examination; privilege not a bar to access under 14(b)(2)(B). |
| What is the appropriate scope and procedure for disclosure of treatment records? | Broad access to records required to test mental condition; no interim protective measures needed. | Disclosures should be limited and controlled; risk of misuse and irrelevance. | Court adopts interim ‘same records’ approach pending committee rules; broad access to necessary records. |
| Does the discovery violate psychotherapist-patient or other privileges? | Privileges do not bar necessary discovery for examination. | Privileges may protect treatment records; should be narrowly construed. | Waiver and statutory provisions allow review; protections apply, but records may be examined. |
| Should the court rewrite discovery scope without committee input? | Expanded discovery is appropriate to ensure reliability. | Expansion is premature and should await committee study and public input. | Court remands for committee consideration and adopts interim procedural framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, 457 Mass. 300 (Mass. 2010) (discovery scope related to lack of criminal responsibility defense; pre-amendment rule 14)
- Blaisdell v. Commonwealth, 372 Mass. 753 (Mass. 1977) (psychiatric examination scope and limited waiver when defendant offers mental-state testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 433 Mass. 93 (Mass. 2000) (ineffectiveness when failing to provide medical records to defense expert; relevance of treatment records)
- Commonwealth v. Connors, 447 Mass. 313 (Mass. 2006) (waiver and relation of psychotherapist-patient privilege to rule 14; overlap with constitutional rights)
- Commonwealth v. Durham, 446 Mass. 212 (Mass. 2006) (discovery standards under rule 14; liberal discovery preference but bounds of scope)
- Commonwealth v. Callahan, 386 Mass. 784 (Mass. 1982) (limited waiver for compelled examination; Fifth Amendment/art. 12 considerations)