Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court interprets G. L. c. 123, § 17(b), governing an incompetent defendant’s opportunity to present a defense on the merits. The court holds that the judge must determine whether there is a lack of substantial evidence to support a conviction by considering the entire record, weighing evidence, and assessing witness credibility, while applying the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt framework. The court also holds that the defendant may present live testimony and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard governs whether there is a lack of substantial evidence to support a conviction at a hearing under G. L. c. 123, § 17 (b)?
- May the judge at a § 17 (b) hearing weigh the entire record, including defense evidence, and assess witness credibility?
- Does G. L. c. 123, § 17 (b), permit an incompetent defendant to present live testimonial evidence, call the complainant as a witness, and cross-examine prosecution witnesses?
- If the court finds a lack of substantial evidence to support a conviction, is the resulting relief an acquittal or dismissal of the indictment or other charges?
Holdings
- The statutory standard is whether there is a lack of substantial evidence to support a conviction; it is not the required-finding-of-not-guilty standard under Myers and is not a civil evidentiary standard.
- At a § 17 (b) hearing, the judge must consider the entire record, including evidence presented by the defendant, weigh the evidence, and assess the credibility of all witnesses, while determining whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt rather than substituting the judge's personal view of the evidence.
- An incompetent defendant has the right at a § 17 (b) hearing to call witnesses, present live testimonial evidence, and cross-examine witnesses presented by the Commonwealth.
- A finding of a lack of substantial evidence to support a conviction results in dismissal of the indictment or other charges and release from criminal custody, not an acquittal.
Key quotations
“The plain meaning of “substantial evidence to support a conviction” requires the Commonwealth to present substantial evidence from which a rational jury could convict the defendant, that is, find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (622)
“It thus requires a judge to weigh all the evidence, including evidence adduced by the defendant, and assess the credibility of all witnesses.” (623)
“The former requires the judge to measure the Commonwealth’s case against the entire record, including the contrary evidence presented by the defendant; the latter only requires the judge to consider “the evidence in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the contrary evidence presented by the defendant.”” (624)
“The defendant clearly has a right to call witnesses at a § 17 (b) hearing.” (624-625)
Factual background
The defendant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was accused of raping and sexually abusing a ten-year-old girl during a period between June 29 and July 5, 1997. He was indicted in October 1997 for rape of a child, indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen, and unnatural and lascivious acts on a child under sixteen. After being found incompetent to stand trial, he sought permission under G. L. c. 123, § 17 (b), asserting that the Commonwealth lacked substantial evidence and that he could present an alibi depending on the precise dates of the alleged offenses.
Procedural history
The defendant was indicted as a youthful offender on charges arising from alleged sexual abuse. After an evidentiary hearing, a District Court judge found him incompetent to stand trial. The judge allowed the defendant to request a merits defense under G. L. c. 123, § 17 (b), ruled that the substantial-evidence standard would be applied using a required-finding-of-not-guilty framework, and stated that the complainant could testify. The Commonwealth challenged those rulings under G. L. c. 211, § 3; the single justice reserved and reported the matter without decision to the full court.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the county court for entry of an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.