Edwards
464 Mass. 454
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Edwards, indigent, seeks discharge from civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person under G. L. c. 123A, § 9.
- He petitions for funds to retain an independent examiner to evaluate him and assist his case; judge initially authorizes $2,500.
- Dr. Daniel Kriegman is retained at CPCS-approved rates: $190/hour direct services, $60/hour travel.
- Petitioner later requests supplemental funds totaling $2,060.80 after Dr. Kriegman incurs hours beyond the initial $2,500.
- Judge awards $1,500 supplemental amount on May 6, 2011, and later denies $560.80; CPCS appeals via § 27D and intervenes.
- Issue arises whether CPCS’s rate-setting is binding, and whether § 14(b) or § 27C governs payment for indigent defs in § 9 proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPCS rate is binding on the court for indigent § 9 cases | Edwards/indigent party argues CPCS rate controls total fee | Commonwealth argues court can set total reasonably necessary amount but not reduce CPCS rate | Yes; court bound by CPCS rate but may assess reasonableness of total. |
| Whether § 14(b) applies to indigent § 9 discharge proceedings | Edwards/ Commonwealth contends different framework but should align | CPCS argues § 14(b) not applicable to petitioners under § 9; may be considered | § 14(b) applies conceptually; judicial determination aligns under both § 14(b) and § 27C. |
| Whether judge unlawfully intruded on CPCS’s hourly-rate prerogative by referencing FHS contracts | Edwards argues trial judge impermissibly set a rate by comparing to FHS | CPCS contends judge only assessed efficiency and reasonableness within CPCS rate | No intrusion; judge weighed efficiency but maintained CPCS rate. |
| Standards governing supplemental funds for services already rendered | Edwards seeks full amount based on services rendered under initial authorization | Court may grant only good cause for extra time and pay at CPCS rate | Judge may grant supplemental funds for reasonably necessary additional services; must use CPCS rate. |
| Finality and reviewability of § 27D decisions and CPCS’s appellate posture | Direct appellate review appropriate for legal questions | § 27D finality for single-justice decisions limits review | Direct appellate review is permitted for distinct legal questions; finality elements acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Matranga, 455 Mass. 45 (2009) (discusses indigency funds and judge's role in determining reasonable compensation)
- Commonwealth v. Lockley, 381 Mass. 156 (1980) (limits and factors for judge determining reasonably necessary expert costs)
- Commonwealth v. Clarke, 418 Mass. 207 (1994) (excessiveness of requested funds; judge's discretion in sufficiency)
- Gos v. Brownstein, 403 Mass. 252 (1988) (finality principles for § 27D appeals and exceptions to finality)
- Johnstone, petitioner, 453 Mass. 544 (2009) (discussion of CPCS contracts with Forensic Health Services and rates)
- Commonwealth v. Souza, 397 Mass. 236 (1986) (equal justice under the law standard for indigent defendants' access to experts)