NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

Commonwealth v. Chatman 466 Mass. 327 (2013)

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: SARAH E. FAUST I. Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of deliberate and premeditated murder of his mother on January 24, 2002.1 Over six years later (on May 6, 2008), he filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that he was not competent to stand trial in 2002.2 The motion was denied after a non-evidentiary hearing, and the defendant appealed the denial arguing error in the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion.3 II. Facts The defendant, who lived with his mothers aunt, had a strained, and sometimes hostile, relationship with his mother.4 This unfortunate relationship may have been partly due to jealousy over his mothers relationship with her two daughters (the defendants half-sisters), indicated by disparaging remarks he made when one of his half-sisters telephoned the aunts house.5 On the morning of February 10, 2000, sometime between 11 a.m. and noon, the defendant told the aunt that he was going to work out, but wanted to clean his room when he returned and asked where the mop was kept.6 Upon his return, the aunt left the house to visit friends and, thereafter, the defendant called 911 from the aunts house reporting that his mother had been shot.7 It was determined that the victim most likely died between 8:30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Commonwealth v. Chatman, 466 Mass. 327, 327 (2013). Id. at 328. Id. Id. Id. Id. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 328.

39

NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

40

New Eng. L. Rev. Mass. Crim. Digest

v. 48 | 39

a.m. and 12:30 p.m., and that she had been killed by a single gunshot wound to the back of her neck.8 Physical evidence at the scene strongly suggested that the defendant was involved in his mothers murder.9 The evidence indicated that the victims body had been moved from the defendant s bedroom to the aunts bedroom, where it was found by police.10 Evidence also suggested that the defendant had mopped the floor in his bedroom and put bloodied clothing in the washing machine.11 The defendants bloody fingerprint was found on a wall in his bedroom, and bloody footprints were left in the bathroom and inside the bathtub.12 Significantly, the victims blood was found on the defendants sneaker, clothing, the bottom of his bedroom door, his mattress, and on the shower curtain liner in the bathtub. 13 Additionally, while the murder weapon was not found, a .38 caliber handgun was retrieved from the defendants bedroom, along with multiple different kinds of ammunition.14 Although neither the handgun nor the ammunition was involved in the murder they were admitted at trial to show that the defendant was familiar with handguns. 15 Although the defendant denied killing his mother, his statements could not be reconciled with the physical evidence.16 During the 911 call, the defendant reported that his mother had been shot, yet the entry and exit wounds were not readily apparent: he would not have immediately known that his mother had been shotunless he was the one that shot her.17 Additionally, he insisted that he had not been in the bathroom between discovering the body and the police arriving but police found his bloody footprints there.18 Interestingly, the defendant also told police: Im a man and if it means I get the death penalty or life in prison, I ll take it like a man.19 The Commonwealths theorized that the victim went to confront the defendant because he made comments about her daughters call to the aunts

8 9

Id. See id. at 329. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 329. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 329.

NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

2013

Commonwealth v. Chatman

41

house, and the defendant shot her during the confrontation. 20 The defense challenged the accuracy of the forensic evidence and, alternatively, argued that even if it was accurate, the Commonwealth still could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did actually kill his mother. 21 In support of his 2008 motion for a new trial, the defendant filed multiple affidavits supporting his claim that he was incompetent at the 2002 trial.22 Two affidavits from medical professionals opined that the defendant likely suffered from a schizoaffective disorder.23 Dr. Joss, a forensic psychologist, believed that the defendants disease was a substantial disorder of thought, mood and perception which grossly impairs [the defendant s] judgment, behavior, and capacity to recognize reality. 24 Dr. Joss further opined that the defendant suffered from this condition both before and during trial, and as a result, did not have a rational understanding of the proceedings against him.25 Dr. Drebing, a neuropsychologist who conducted multiple tests on the defendant, determined that the defendant had symptoms of a potential schizoaffective, delusional disorder.26 Further, the defendants relatives and acquaintances submitted supporting affidavits. 27 In addition, a forensic psychologist at the court clinic, Dr. Leavitt, conducted a competency evaluation on the defendant after he called the judge a racist bitch during a hearing on a motion filed by the Commonwealth.28 Dr. Leavitt determined that the defendant presented mental health issues and was likely incompetent to participate in a complex proceeding, such as an evidentiary hearing.29 In late 2010, upon a subsequent order for a competency evaluation and after the defendant had begun taking medication, Dr. Leavitt concluded that he was competent to engage actively, meaningfully, and rationally in the legal proceeding. 30 The judge then heard arguments on the defendants motion for a new trial on March 3, 2011.31 The motion was denied on October 6, 2011.32

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Id. at 329-330. Id. See id. at 330-331, 332. Id. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 330 (internal quotation marks omitted). Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Id. at 331. See id. at 332. Id. at 331. Id. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 331-332. Id. at 332. Id.

NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

42

New Eng. L. Rev. Mass. Crim. Digest

v. 48 | 39

In denying the motion, the motion judge (also the trial judge) determined that the defendant had not made an adequate showing that he was incompetent at the time of trial.33 She reasoned that a history of mental illness did not establish incompetency and that Dr. Joss s opinion was unreliable because it was based mainly on the defendant s recollections.34 She further noted that many of Dr. Josss conclusions did not have sufficient basis in the record.35 As for the affidavits filed by the defendants acquaintances, the judge determined that they were of little or no value, as the affiants were not qualified to render a medical opinion.36 Additionally, the judge relied heavily on the fact that there was no indication that the defendants trial counsel considered their client to be incompetent at the time of trial.37 Finally, the judge presented her own experience as reason for denying the motion: she did not see anything during the trial that suggested that there might be an issue of competency. 38 III. Issues Presented 1. Whether the appropriate standard of proof for determining the defendants competency to stand trial a preponderance of the evidence or a substantial question of possible doubt.,39 including whether the appropriate burden of persuasion assigned to the defendant during the hearing on his motion for a new trial. 40 2. Whether the particular facts of the case mandated an evidentiary hearing.41 IV. Holdings and Reasoning 1. The court held that because the defendants competence was not raised at trial, the defendant, at the hearing on his motion for a new trial, must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Commonwealth would not have prevailed on the issue if it had been raised at trial. 42 Quite simply, the judge assigned the incorrect burden of persuasion to the

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Id. Id. Id. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 332. Id. at 333. Id. See id. at 334. See id. at 335. See id. at 336. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 336.

NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

2013

Commonwealth v. Chatman

43

defendant.43 The defendant incorrectly argued that he was only required to show that there was a substantial question of possible doubt as to his competence to stand trial.44 The court explained that because the allegation was not that circumstances at trial gave rise to a substantial question of possible doubt, the case was more analogous to one involving newly discovered evidencerequiring the preponderance of the evidence standard. 45 However, the Commonwealths assertion that the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not competent to stand trial was also incorrect.46 The court reasoned that, if the defendant had the burden of proof on the issue at trial, then he would need to establish that he would have prevailed by a preponderance of evidence had the issue been raised at trial.47 However, if, as here, the Commonwealth had the burden of proof on the issue at trial, then the defendant must establish that the Commonwealth would not have prevailed on the issue if it had been raised at trial.48 2. The court held that the defendant made an adequate showing that he had a mental illness that could have, due to the nature of the disorder, been unnoticeable at trial; the Commonwealth may not have been able to prove that the defendant was competent.49 Because the defendant raised a serious question of his competency, an evidentiary hearing to explore the issue further was necessary.50 In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the considerable weight given to the trial counsels failure to indicate the defendants incompetency at the time of trial was unwarranted.51 Trial counsel provided an affidavit stating they would have raised the issue of competency had they thought it relevant; however, the affidavit was intended for the purpose of supporting the defendants motion for funds for a psychologistnot for the purpose of addressing the defendants competence.52 To better evaluate trial counsels opinion as to competence, it would have been more appropriate to

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Id. Id. at 334. Id. at 335. Id. at 334. Id. at 335. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 335-336. Id. at 338. Id. at 339. See id. at 336-337. Id. at 336-337.

NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

44

New Eng. L. Rev. Mass. Crim. Digest

v. 48 | 39

have the counsel testify at an evidentiary hearing. 53 Further, the court found that the judges dismissal of Dr. Josss opinion was unwarranted because his opinion was bolstered by Dr. Leavitts concurring opinion and because there was nothing to indicate that Dr. Josss assessment of the defendants mental health history at the time of trial was flawed in the manner articulated by the judge.54 Most significantly, the court reasoned that the defendants mental illness was could have been concealed at trial successfully, thus not presenting an issue of competence at trial, the defendants motion on the issue of competence was incredibly complicated and required an evidentiary hearing to sufficiently analyze. 55 Furthermore, the court noted that because the Commonwealth offered little evidence that the defendant was actually competent at the time of trial, the defendant had a reasonable chance at proving that the Commonwealth did not meet its burden at trial. 56 Because this case was a closer call than the hearing and subsequent analysis indicated, and because the incorrect burden was used in the ruling, the court vacated the ruling denying the motion for a new trial and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.57 V. Impact on the Law Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Chatman, the standard of proof for determining whether a defendant was competent to stand trial was substantial question of possible doubt..58 This standard was not fully clarified prior to this case and it resulted in an oversimplification of the appropriate standard. 59 Chatman more fully explained that this standard applies only when the allegations were issues present at trial that g[i]ve rise to a substantial question of possible

See id. at 337, 339. Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 337-338. 55 Id. at 338. 56 Id. at 338-339. 57 Id. at 339. 58 See Commonwealth v. W.M.M., 69 Mass. App. Ct. 1113, at *2 (2007) (citing Commonwelath v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 54 (1978); quoting Rhay v. White, 385 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 1967) (This accumulation of factors merited consideration by the motion judge whether, at the time of the plea colloquy, there existed a substantial question of possible doubt about the defendant's competency under Commonwealth v. Hill.). 59 See Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 334-335; Commonewalth v. Companonio, 445 Mass. 39, 48-49 (2005) (simply noting that [n]one of the defendant's so-called evidence of incompetency creates a substantial question of possible doubt on the issue of competency.).
54

53

NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

2013

Commonwealth v. Chatman

45

doubt.60 Conversely, if the court reviews newly discovered conditions that were concealed at trial (as was the case with Chapman) than the preponderance of the evidence standard is more appropriate. 61

60 61

Commonwealth v. Chatman, supra at 335. Id.