An SJC justice has granted a petition for “extraordinary relief” (M.G.L. c. 211, Sec. 3) and ordered the release of a criminal defendant who was involuntarily hospitalized for a mental health evaluation.
The defendant faces multiple gun-related charges in district court. His attorney moved for a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation to assess the man’s competence to stand trial. The evaluation was to take place on an out-patient basis per M.G.L. c. 123, Sec. 15(a).
The out-patient evaluation was done and a hearing was scheduled earlier this month. At the hearing the court clinician told the judge that the defendant lacked competency. However, the clinician also noted that the defendant’s poor mental condition may be due to illicit drug use and not an innate disorder.
The clinician advised that the court had two options. First, the judge could order the defendant to remain drug free with random screenings. Once the defendant was drug free, another out-patient evaluation could be done. Second, the judge could commit the defendant to a psychiatric hospital for up to 20 days under M.G.L. c. 123, Sec. 15(b) and have him re-evaluated during that time. According to the clinician, the defendant “didn’t appear to need to be hospitalized at that time.”
Despite this advice, the judge ordered the defendant to be hospitalized. The order came with no written or oral explanation. Because no hospital bed was readily available, the defendant was jailed without the right to bail while he waited. His lawyer’s filed a petition with the SJC seeking extraordinary relief from the judgment.
The single justice receiving the petition immediately vacated the judge’s order.
First the justice re-iterated the applicable case law:
To satisfy constitutional due process a judge may only involuntarily hospitalize a defendant pursuant to § 15 (b) if the judge finds that the Commonwealth, the party with the burden of proof, demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that there are no appropriate, less restrictive alternatives that adequately would allow for a determination of a defendant’s competency. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Additionally,
the judge must make clear, in writing or orally on the record, the evidence he or she credited in support of the legal conclusion that it is necessary to hospitalize the defendant pursuant to § 15 (b). . . . This includes evidence the judge credited supporting the conclusion that hospitalization is the least restrictive means of determining competency.
These requirements were recently set forth in Commonwealth v. A.Z, 493 Mass. at 427 (2024).
The district court judge failed to comply with the requires of AZ and, consequently, her order amounted to an abuse of discretion. The justice concludes,
Because the hearing judge failed to make a finding as to whether hospitalization was the least restrictive means of determining competency and what evidence she credited to that effect, I conclude that the hearing judge abused her discretion when on October 4 she ordered the defendant committed involuntarily pursuant to § 15 (b) and, on the basis of that order, further ordered him held without bail.
The full text of the decision is attached below.