Reciprocal court-ordered psychological exam upheld by SJC

Listen to this article

A defendant who retained an expert to conduct a psychological examination in support of his motion for resentencing could be ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination by the commonwealth’s own expert, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.

“This case presents a narrow question: whether, in postconviction resentencing proceedings under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001) (rule 30), a judge may permit limited discovery in the form of a court-ordered psychiatric examination of a defendant who elects to rely on expert opinion derived from a personal examination,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the SJC.

“Resentencing proceedings, like original sentencing hearings, permit consideration of a broad range of information bearing on the defendant’s characteristics, background, and prospects for rehabilitation. … Where a defendant elects to present mental health evidence derived from a personal examination, allowing a limited reciprocal evaluation serves the societal interest of ensuring a ‘fair inquiry’ into this critical issue,” Georges wrote.

“Although postconviction discovery often is sought by defendants to develop evidence otherwise ‘unknown to the court’ to support ‘an apparently meritorious claim,’ … permitting appropriate discovery by the Commonwealth ensures that resentencing decisions rest on accurate and complete information,” he wrote.

“Where, as here, the defendant relies on expert opinion grounded substantially in recent personal interviews and clinical judgment concerning his mental state and rehabilitation, permitting the Commonwealth to obtain a corresponding psychiatric examination serves that purpose. Such reciprocity helps ensure that the sentencing judge is not presented with a one-sided expert narrative that cannot be meaningfully tested through cross-examination alone,” he added.

The court cautioned that its holding was “limited.”

“We do not suggest that a psychiatric examination is warranted whenever a defendant seeks resentencing or introduces generalized mitigation evidence. Instead, a motion judge acts within his or her discretion where, as here, the defendant’s expert opinion rests substantially on personal interviews and clinical assessment addressing the defendant’s psychological functioning — a matter not readily susceptible to meaningful assessment without comparable evaluation,” Georges wrote.

The 17-page decision is Berry v. Commonwealth, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-024-26.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.