115 N.E.3d 546
Mass.2019Background
- M.C., charged with misdemeanors, was found incompetent to stand trial and temporarily committed; diagnosed with schizophrenia at Solomon Carter Fuller Mental Health Center.
- Commonwealth and Solomon Carter sought civil commitment under G. L. c. 123; hearing scheduled within statutory time frame but moved to a later date after continuance requests.
- M.C. moved to have the commitment hearing at the Boston Municipal Court (court house); the motion was denied and the hearing was held in a hearing room at the hospital.
- The court’s primary recording device failed early in the hearing; backup recorders (an assistant clerk’s iPhone and a cassette recorder) were used, producing a transcript with gaps and some inaudible portions.
- The inpatient psychiatrist testified to repeated incidents of violence, severe disorganization, poor self-care, and imminent risk to self/others; the judge found M.C. mentally ill and ordered involuntary commitment for two months.
- M.C. moved under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate; postcommitment proceedings included a recommitment, appeal, and the Appeals Court review granted directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearing at hospital (not courthouse) violated due process/equal protection/ADA | M.C.: hospital setting stigmatizes and denies equal access; ADA and equal protection implicated; requests courthouse | Solomon Carter/DMH: statute permits hearings at facilities; transport risks, safety concerns, and available recordation at facility | Court: Judge has discretion under G. L. c. 123 §5 to choose location; no due process violation shown; did not decide ADA/equal protection on facts presented |
| Whether malfunction and irregular recording deprived M.C. of a sufficient record for appeal | M.C.: lack of complete verbatim transcript prejudiced appeal and due process | Solomon Carter/DMH: malfunction was inadvertent; backups produced substantial record; gaps can be accommodated; party must attempt reconstruction if needed | Court: Record was sufficiently complete to permit appellate review; denial of Rule 60(b) relief not an abuse of discretion |
| Mootness of appeal after release and subsequent recommitment | Solomon Carter: initial commitment expired, appeal moot | M.C.: surviving interest in clearing stigma and duration matters; subsequent recommitment does not erase stigma | Court: Appeal not moot; surviving interest in challenging lawfulness of prior commitment |
| Whether civil commitment hearings must be open to public | M.C. (implicit): hearings should be open and accessible; hospital location may impede access | Motion judge suggested hearings at hospital are typically closed; courts’ practice varied | Court: Civil commitment proceedings under G. L. c. 123 §16(b) are presumptively open; public access and adequate recording required, though closure may be appropriate in limited circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirk v. Commonwealth, 459 Mass. 67 (2011) (held recommitment proceedings presumptively open; emphasized public access benefits)
- Matter of E.C., 479 Mass. 113 (2018) (discussed balance of protections and Commonwealth interest in commitment hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Imbert, 479 Mass. 575 (2018) (record must be sufficiently complete for appellate review; complete verbatim transcript not always required)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 376 Mass. 74 (1978) (allows rough accommodations where transcript gaps are not party fault; appellate reconstruction permitted)
- Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971) (right to a record sufficient for appellate review)
- Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971) (alternatives to full transcript may be constitutionally adequate)
- Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504 (1972) (described commitment and psychiatric treatment as a "massive curtailment of liberty")
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) (standard of proof in civil commitment context)
- Newton-Wellesley Hosp. v. Magrini, 451 Mass. 777 (2008) (discussed statutory standard for likelihood of serious harm in commitment)
- Commonwealth v. Nassar, 380 Mass. 908 (1980) (addressed imminence and standard of proof in civil commitment context)