962 N.E.2d 190
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Michael Scionti appeals his assault and battery conviction of a correction officer.
- The issues are competency to stand trial and whether trial in the defendant’s absence violated due process.
- Three experienced Superior Court judges separately evaluated the defendant’s behavior and competency across five hearings.
- Competency screenings were conducted by Dr. Joyce Perrotta and reviewed with input from other psychologists and court staff.
- Due to disruptive, threatening conduct, the trial proceeded with the defendant present by audio link and under restraints; he forfeited his right to be present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency to stand trial | Commonwealth contends defendant competent | Scionti challenges competency | Competent; judge did not abuse discretion in finding competency |
| Forfeiture of right to confrontation | Commonwealth argues forfeiture due to deliberate misconduct | Scionti argues right to confrontation violated | Forfeiture established; permissible under circumstances; not a violation of right to confrontation |
Key Cases Cited
- Pate v. Robinson, 384 U.S. 394 (8th Cir. 1966) (due process requires competency questions)
- Commonwealth v. Hung Tan Vo, 427 Mass. 464 (1998) (competency standard; deference to trial judge)
- Commonwealth v. Crowley, 393 Mass. 393 (1984) (burden to prove competency by preponderance)
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (removal for disruptive behavior; confrontation rights)
- Commonwealth v. Chubbuck, 384 Mass. 746 (1981) (judge may rely on observations; not every disruption requires hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Means, 454 Mass. 81 (2009) (forfeiture of counsel; procedures for forfeiture hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Bergstrom, 402 Mass. 534 (1988) (confrontation rights; core guarantee)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause; testimonial statements)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 (2005) (forfeiture doctrine applicability in confrontation)
- Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858 (2010) (forfeiture and confrontation principles)