In the Matter of N.L. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-044-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12183 IN THE MATTER OF N.L. Middlesex. December 5, 2016. – March 14, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Mental Health. Practice, Civil, Commitment of mentally ill person, Continuance, Moot case. Moot Question. Petitions for civil commitment and to authorize medical treatment filed in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department on November 3, 2014. A motion for a continuance was heard by Roanne Sragow, J., and the petitions were also heard by her. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Karen Owen Talley for the respondent. Diane M. Geraghty Hall for the petitioner. Anna Krieger, Robert D. Fleischner, Jennifer Honig, & Phillip Kassel, for Center for Public Representation & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. LOWY, J. N.L. appeals from the order for his civil commitment to a mental health facility (hospital), pursuant to G. L. c. 123, §§ 7 and 8, and the order authorizing his treatment with antipsychotic medications pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 8B. He argues that the District Court judge improperly denied his prehearing request for a continuance to allow time for his counsel to prepare an adequate defense and an independent medical examiner to complete a psychiatric evaluation. We transferred the case from the Appeals Court to this court on our own motion. We dismiss the appeal as moot but exercise our discretion to address the issue before us, which is whether a judge may deny a person’s (or the person’s counsel’s) first request for a continuance of a hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 7 (c) or 8B. We hold that where a person or his or her counsel requests such a continuance, the grant of the continuance is mandatory where a denial thereof is reasonably likely to prejudice a person’s ability to prepare a meaningful defense.[1] Background. 1. Facts. N.L. was admitted to the hospital on October 30, 2014, under the emergency hospitalization provisions of G. L. c. 123, § 12. On November 3, the hospital filed a petition for commitment pursuant to G. L. c. 123, §§ 7 and 8, and a petition for determination of incompetency and for authorization for medical treatment for mental illness pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 8B. Counsel was appointed for N.L. […]