Posts tagged "Accime"

Commonwealth v. Accime (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-029-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12081   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  RICHIE ACCIME.       Suffolk.     November 9, 2016. – February 13, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.     Idle and Disorderly Person.  Self-Defense.  Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury.       Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on July 19, 2011.   The case was tried before Annette Forde, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Jeffrey A. Garland, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Donna Jalbert Patalano, Assistant District Attorney (Neil J. Flynn, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth. Bettina Toner, Robert D. Fleischner, Jennifer Honig, Chetan Tiwari, & Phillip Kassel, for Center for Public Representation & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     BOTSFORD, J.  The defendant, Richie Accime, appeals from his disorderly conduct conviction under G. L. c. 272, § 53, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support it.  The charge was brought against him in relation to his conduct as a patient in the psychiatric area of the emergency department at a hospital in Boston.  Accime argues that in the circumstances of this case, the Commonwealth failed to prove he consciously disregarded a “substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm.”  Emphasizing the setting-specific inquiry required by our case law, we agree with the defendant and reverse the judgment of conviction.[1] Background.  a.  Facts.  Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could have found the following.  In the afternoon of June 5, 2011, the defendant was brought by ambulance and against his will to the emergency department of a hospital.  There he was involuntarily detained in a small room in the psychiatric area of the hospital’s emergency department.  Although this detention was purportedly pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 12 (a), which allows the temporary restraint and hospitalization of persons posing a serious risk of harm by reason of mental illness, according to the defendant, who testified at trial, he was shown no evidence of compliance with the procedures required by § 12 (a), nor was any such evidence produced at trial. When told he would likely be held in the hospital for two or three days, the defendant began to shout.  Medical […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 13, 2017 at 7:00 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,