979 N.E.2d 1112
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Rivera was convicted by a Superior Court jury on three counts: armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery on a police officer.
- The central trial issue was criminal responsibility given Rivera’s long-standing mental illness, which was activated by voluntary alcohol consumption.
- The trial judge instructed according to then-model jury instructions on mental disease/defect plus alcohol‑activation, including a theory that intoxication could trigger lack of substantial capacity.
- After trial, the Supreme Judicial Court issued expanded instructions in Berry and DiPadova that separately emphasized a defendant’s mental disease/defect independent of intoxication.
- Rivera’s mental health history showed paranoid schizophrenia with multiple hospitalizations and relapse after his mother’s death; he had consumed alcohol before the offense.
- The court reversed the verdicts and remanded for a new trial in light of the revised instructions, applying the Berry/DiPadova framework retroactively under direct review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the instruction adequately covered independent mental disease/defect as a basis for irresponsibility | Rivera argues the instruction omitted independent lack of capacity | Commonwealth contends the instruction was correct at the time | Convictions reversed; remand for updated instruction |
| Whether Berry/DiPadova instructions apply retroactively to Rivera’s trial | Rivera receives benefit from post‑trial standard | Commonwealth argues no retroactive application | Retroactive; new trial ordered |
| Admissibility of the 2002 not guilty by reason of insanity verdict at remand | Evidence of prior disposition relevant to credibility/mental state | Risk of prejudice; no improper propensity use | Admissible under court’s discretion; Mutina framework maintained |
| Whether the subjective knowledge element of the instruction was properly included | Subjective knowledge not supported by evidence | Inclusion appropriate under revised model and open to retrial evidence | No substantial risk of miscarriage; remains open for retrial under DiPadova framework |
| Whether the expanded instruction adequately informs jurors about addiction/activation and responsibility | Expanded Berry/DiPadova instruction necessary | Original model instruction sufficient | Open to retrial with revised instruction on mental disease independent of intoxication |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Berry, 457 Mass. 602 (Mass. 2010) (expanded instructions for mental illness independent of intoxication)
- Commonwealth v. DiPadova, 460 Mass. 424 (Mass. 2011) (revised model instruction for independent mental disease/defect)
- Commonwealth v. Mutina, 366 Mass. 810 (Mass. 1975) (instruction on not guilty by reason of insanity safeguards)
- Commonwealth v. Whitman, 453 Mass. 331 (Mass. 2009) (subjective knowledge of alcohol effect discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Pearce, 427 Mass. 642 (Mass. 1998) (probative value vs prejudice in evidence rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Shelley, 381 Mass. 340 (Mass. 1980) (principles on criminal responsibility and absence of required expert)
- Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 314 (Mass. 1970) (origins of model instructions on responsibility)
- Commonwealth v. Brennan, 399 Mass. 358 (Mass. 1987) (development of criminal responsibility standards)
- Commonwealth v. Herd, 413 Mass. 834 (Mass. 1992) (relevant model jury instruction guidance)