Commonwealth v. Rutkowski
459 Mass. 794
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Defendant convicted of first-degree murder on theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty; victim was her husband.
- Also convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon; motion for new trial denied; appeal consolidated with direct appeal.
- Defendant sought instruction that mental impairment could affect all factors relevant to extreme atrocity or cruelty.
- Judge instructed mental impairment only as it related to intent/knowledge, not conduct, and after second-degree instruction.
- Defense presented psychiatric testimony detailing long history of mental illness and brain injury; claimed lack of capacity to conform conduct to law.
- Court remands for possible retrial on extreme atrocity/cruelty or for lesser offense per Commonwealth v. Lennon framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to instruct on mental impairment for extreme atrocity/cruelty was reversible | Gould/Rosenthal require considering impairment on atrocity/cruelty. | Instruction misled jury; impairment affects the extreme atrocity/cruelty question. | Error in failing to allow impairment as to atrocity/cruelty; possible miscarriage of justice. |
| Whether mental impairment evidence should influence extreme atrocity/cruelty considerations | Impairment should be weighed in the factors of atrocity/cruelty. | Impairment not properly allowed to affect the atrocity/cruelty verdict. | Defense claim supported; error likely influenced verdict; remand possible. |
| Whether statements to mental health professionals were misused at trial | Statements to medical/mental health professionals should be considered for truth if reliable. | Cannot rely on those statements for truth unless meeting treatment/record criteria. | No error; proper limitations upheld. |
| Whether remand permits choosing a lesser offense or retry on atrocity/cruelty | If atrocity/cruelty verdict flawed, defendant should be retried or reduced to lesser offense. | Remand appropriate under Lennon framework; cannot simply affirm atrocity/cruelty verdict. | Murder in second degree factually supportable; Commonwealth may move for lesser offense or retry. |
| Whether counsel's ineffective assistance on mental impairment argument preserved | Potential error unpreserved; merits discussion may be needed. | Ineffective assistance not decided due to disposition on other issues. | Not decided; procedural posture allows later consideration on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gould, 380 Mass. 672 (1980) (requirement to consider mental impairment on extreme atrocity or cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Rosenthal, 432 Mass. 124 (2000) (jury may consider mental impairment in evaluating homicide factors)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (1992) (potential for miscarriage of justice when instructions are deficient)
- Commonwealth v. Shelley, 381 Mass. 340 (1980) (mental impairment evidence considerations in homicide)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 392 Mass. 632 (1984) (remand for reconsideration where appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Lennon, 399 Mass. 443 (1987) (remand/retrial framework for lesser included offenses)