12 N.E.3d 1122
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant accused of indecent assault and battery on Jan 20, 2011 aboard MBTA Green Line; victim testified defendant touched her upper thigh near genital area and she pushed him off and left the train.
- MBTA video and Charlie card data identified defendant; officers interviewed him next day, he admitted having a problem and said he had medication but was not taking it.
- Defendant has a long documented history of severe mental illness (schizophrenia / schizoaffective), repeated hospitalizations, a Rogers guardianship, and frequent noncompliance with prescribed medication.
- Forensic psychologist Dr. Susan Lewis testified defendant suffered active psychotic symptoms when off medication, diagnosed frotteurism, and opined he likely lacked capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct at the time of the incident.
- Trial was jury-waived; judge found defendant criminally responsible based on her view that he knew failing to take medication would produce criminal behavior and nevertheless stopped taking it.
- Appeals court concluded the judge applied the wrong analytical framework (importing Berry/DiPadova drug-consumption reasoning to medication noncompliance) and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence showed defendant was criminally responsible at time of offense | Commonwealth: judge correctly found defendant knew noncompliance would cause reoffending and so was criminally responsible | Shin: lacked criminal responsibility due to active psychosis from not taking medication | Reversed — court could not discern proper finding on defendant's actual capacity; new trial required |
| Whether Berry/DiPadova voluntary-intoxication analysis applies to failure to take prescribed medication | Commonwealth: analogously applicable because defendant knew effects of noncompliance | Shin: noncompliance differs from voluntary ingestion of intoxicants; different reasons and legal implications | Berry/DiPadova analysis inapplicable here; judge erred by applying it |
| Whether evidence proved defendant knew or should have known noncompliance would cause incapacity | Commonwealth: prior history and treatments put defendant on notice | Shin: record gaps and evidence show periods without compliance and access issues; no clear proof he knew incapacity would result | Court found inadequate basis to resolve that factual/legal question on record; error prejudicial |
| Whether judge’s reasoning permitted an actual finding on defendant’s capacity at the incident | Commonwealth: judge implicitly found capacity existed when compliant and that refusal made him responsible | Shin: judge failed to make an express determination whether defendant lacked requisite capacity at time of offense | Held that judge’s additional inquiry into cause (noncompliance) obscured whether she evaluated capacity itself; requires new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Berry, 457 Mass. 602 (court described instruction when defendant knew drugs/alcohol would activate or intensify mental disease causing lack of criminal responsibility)
- Commonwealth v. DiPadova, 460 Mass. 424 (clarified Berry and held voluntary intoxication that produces incapacity can establish responsibility if defendant knew or should have known the effects)
- Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 314 (general principles on criminal responsibility and related precedent cited by trial judge)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing denial of required finding of not guilty)
- Commonwealth v. Sokphann Chhim, 447 Mass. 370 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence cited by court)