Commonwealth v. Curran (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-006-18)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12293 COMMONWEALTH vs. EDWARD CURRAN. Worcester. September 6, 2017. – January 12, 2018. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. Sex Offender. Practice, Civil, Sex offender. Evidence, Sex offender, Expert opinion, Competency, Insanity. Incompetent Person, Commitment. Witness, Expert. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 3, 2015. A pretrial motion to admit expert testimony with regard to criminal responsibility was heard by Richard T. Tucker, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Judd J. Carhart, J., in the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Marcia T. Kovner for the defendant. Ellyn H. Lazar-Moore, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GAZIANO, J. General Laws c. 123A, § 15, allows incompetent persons who are unable to stand trial for qualifying sex offenses to be deemed sexually dangerous based on the commission of those offenses. In 2008, we held that this proceeding did not violate due process or equal protection because of the rights the Legislature explicitly included in the statute to “protect an incompetent defendant’s ability to defend himself against the allegations of crime and, thus, minimize the likelihood of a mistake.” Commonwealth v. Burgess, 450 Mass. 366, 375 (2008). Those protections encompass “all rights available to criminal defendants at criminal trials, other than the right not to be tried while incompetent,” G. L. c. 123A, § 15, including the retention of experts, the right to present evidence in defense of the charges, and “the right to a determination of the commission of the criminal acts made beyond a reasonable doubt.” Burgess, supra. Here, the defendant sought to introduce at a hearing on the Commonwealth’s G. L. c. 123A, § 15, petition expert testimony that he was not criminally responsible. Interpreting the statutory language “whether the person did commit the act or acts charged” to mean that he should determine only whether the acts were committed, not whether the defendant was guilty of the acts, the judge denied the motion and allowed the Commonwealth’s motion to preclude the testimony. We conclude that the right of an incompetent defendant to raise defenses in a proceeding pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 15, includes that of a lack of criminal responsibility. Therefore, the denial of the motion […]