Commonwealth v. Husband
82 Mass. App. Ct. 1
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Husband was found to be a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and committed to a secure facility for a period of one day to life after a five-day bench trial.
- The SDP statute requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) was convicted of a statutorily designated sexual offense, (2) suffers a mental abnormality or personality disorder, and (3) is likely to commit further sexual offenses if not confined.
- Commonwealth relied on two expert examiners diagnosing a personality disorder NOS with antisocial traits and on older § 18(a) reports diagnosing a severe borderline personality disorder.
- Defense presented three experts who either found no personality disorder or warned that any provisional diagnosis rested on incarceration conditions; one expert attributed symptoms to solitary confinement effects rather than a personality disorder.
- The trial judge credited the Commonwealth experts and § 18 reports, found a personality disorder NOS, and concluded there was a likelihood of reoffense; he also considered concurrent causation by solitary confinement.
- Husband has a lengthy juvenile/adult criminal record, including extensive misconduct in prison and prior sexual offenses against a staff member, though many offenses were nonsexual or occurred in confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for personality disorder | Husband's disorder evidence was insufficient | Disorder diagnosis conflicted; no proven disorder outside prison context | Yes; Commonwealth proved a personality disorder NOS beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Likelihood of reoffense tied to disorder | Disorder makes reoffense likely; solitary confinement not sole cause | Risk rooted in confinement effects, not disorder; lack of explicit attribution | Yes; evidence supports that the disorder makes reoffense likely, with concurrent confinement factors considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Blake, 454 Mass. 267 (2009) (standard for SDP sufficiency; defer to expert findings)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (established sufficiency review for SDP evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Sargent, 449 Mass. 576 (2007) (deference to trial judge on expert credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Reese, 438 Mass. 519 (2003) (diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder satisfies SDP definition)
- Commonwealth v. Boucher, 438 Mass. 271 (2002) (risk assessment and likelihood standard guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Bradway, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 280 (2004) (credibility and weight of expert testimony)
- Dutil v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 9 (2002) (constitutional/definitional considerations for SDP)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603 (2011) (STATIC-99 and actuarial tools in risk assessment)