🧠 SJC: Courts Cannot Hospitalize Criminal Defendants for Mental Health Evaluations If “Less Restrictive Alternatives” Exist

Criminal defendants with apparent mental health problems are often evaluated to determine whether (1) they are competent to stand trial and (2) they are criminally responsible for their alleged crimes.

Typically, defense counsel files a motion pursuant to M.G.L. c. 123, § 15a. The “15a” evaluation is usually done by the court clinician (who is often a psychologist).

If the clinician believes that further observation is necessary, he or she can ask the court to commit the defendant to a mental health hospital for 20 days per M.G.L. c. 123, § 15b.

This week the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled that such commitments constitute a restriction of the defendant’s liberty and thus must satisfy the “strict scrutiny” requirement in both the state and federal constitutions.

To do this, the Commonwealth must show that hospitalizing the defendant is “the least restrictive alternative” available to satisfy the “compelling state interest” of evaluating his mental health.

The key language of the opinion states.

we conclude that substantive due process mandates that a judge find that hospitalization is required before involuntarily committing a criminal defendant to a hospital for a competency determination. Specifically, we hold that it is unconstitutional, as applied, for a court to hospitalize a pretrial defendant under § 15 (b), for a clinical evaluation and observation of competency, absent a finding by the judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that hospitalization is the least restrictive means available to determine adequately a criminal defendant’s competency to stand trial.

The Commonwealth can meet this standard in a number of ways, according to the SJC. A state expert may testify that hospitalization is necessary for a proper examination. The Commonwealth can also demonstrate that the defendant has a history of failing to comply with court-ordered, outpatient evaluations. Additionally, the state can argue that the defendant’s proposed, out-patient alternatives are not in fact available to him.

The full opinion is attached below.