Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a dangerousness hearing under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 276, § 58A, may proceed when a juvenile has been found legally incompetent, subject to due process safeguards. The court further held that the Commonwealth may rely solely on sufficiently reliable hearsay, including police reports and videotaped statements, provided the evidence supports a finding of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The court also concluded that incompetency-related delay is excluded from the ninety-day detention limit, although continued detention remains subject to constitutional due process limitations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a dangerousness hearing under G. L. c. 276, § 58A, may be conducted when a juvenile has been found incompetent to stand trial.
- Whether the Commonwealth may satisfy its burden at a § 58A dangerousness hearing solely through hearsay evidence, including police reports and videotaped interrogations, without presenting live testimony.
- Whether a juvenile detained after a § 58A dangerousness hearing may be held beyond the statutory ninety-day period while remaining incompetent to stand trial, subject to due process limitations.
Holdings
- It is not per se a violation of due process to conduct a G. L. c. 276, § 58A, dangerousness hearing for a juvenile who has been found incompetent to stand trial, provided appropriate safeguards permit a reliable determination of dangerousness.
- The Commonwealth may satisfy its burden at a § 58A dangerousness hearing solely with hearsay evidence if the hearsay is substantially reliable or there is good cause for not presenting live testimony; the evidence in this case met that standard.
- The ninety-day § 58A detention period excludes periods of delay caused by mental incompetency, but continued detention of an incompetent juvenile is constitutionally limited and requires findings concerning the likelihood of restoration, progress toward competency, and whether the detention has become unreasonable.
Key quotations
“For these reasons, we conclude that it is not a per se violation of due process to hold a hearing under § 58A to determine an incompetent person's dangerousness, regardless whether the person is an adult defendant or a juvenile.” (33-34)
“Unsubstantiated and unreliable hearsay cannot, consistent with due process, be the entire basis of a probation revocation.” (35)
“First, an incompetent defendant or juvenile may not be held in criminal custody awaiting trial "more than the reasonable period of time necessary to determine whether there is a substantial probability that he will attain [competency] in the foreseeable future."” (37-38)
Factual background
A fourteen-year-old juvenile was charged in connection with an alleged attack in which a sleeping man was severely beaten. The juvenile had previously been found incompetent to stand trial. At the dangerousness hearing, the Commonwealth presented no live witnesses and relied on police reports and videotaped interrogations of codefendants and witnesses. The Juvenile Court found by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile was dangerous and that no release condition would reasonably assure public safety, while also ruling that the ninety-day detention period was tolled during incompetency.
Procedural history
The juvenile was arraigned in Juvenile Court on delinquency charges and the Commonwealth sought pretrial detention based on dangerousness under G. L. c. 276, § 58A. The juvenile had previously been found incompetent to stand trial and moved to stay the dangerousness hearing; the Juvenile Court judge denied the motion. The dangerousness hearing proceeded without live witnesses, based on police reports and videotaped interrogations, and the judge ordered detention after finding dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the orders permitting the hearing and detention but remanded for findings concerning competency, the likelihood and progress of restoration, and the reasonableness of the detention's duration.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for a hearing within thirty days of issuance of the rescript to determine whether the juvenile remained incompetent, whether there was a substantial probability that he would attain competency in the foreseeable future, whether he had made progress toward competency, and, if so, whether the duration of detention had become unreasonable. If detention continued, the court required a review hearing at least every ninety days addressing continued incompetency and whether due process required release.