Criminal – Responsibility

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was convicted of four counts of assault and battery on a police officer and one count of threatening to commit a crime, the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to permit a rational fact finder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally responsible at the time of the crimes.

“Judgments of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility shall enter.

“After a bench trial by a judge of the Boston Municipal Court, the defendant was convicted of four counts of assault and battery on a police officer in violation of G.L.c. 265, §13D, and one count of threatening to commit a crime in violation of G.L.c. 275, §2. The defendant contends, as he did in two motions for a required finding of not guilty, that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to permit a rational fact finder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally responsible at the time of the crimes. We agree and reverse. …

“There is no evidence of what happened on the short cruiser ride from the scene of the first assault to the police station. There is no evidence that the defendant ‘calmed down’ when left in the cell to do so. There is no evidence of how the defendant was booked, or the process followed, or when the booking was accomplished. The dissent rests on inferences as to what happened when neither testifying witness was present, but that failure of proof left an evidentiary hole that cannot be filled solely with inference. … This absence of evidence did not give rise to an inference that the defendant’s conduct proved criminal responsibility.

“The Commonwealth failed to carry its burden. …

“The judgments are reversed, the findings are set aside, and judgments of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility shall enter. The case is remanded for the process applicable to persons found not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. …”

Dissenting judge’s comments

Hodgens, J. “‘It will be the rare case where the totality of the evidence regarding the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances surrounding the offense will not be sufficient to defeat a defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility.’ Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806, 817 (2016). The evidence presented by the Commonwealth shows that this is not that rare case.

“Such evidence, offered through the testimony of two arresting officers, showed the defendant engaged in unlawful and belligerent goal-directed behavior that also reflected a strong ‘anti-police’ animus aimed at the uniformed officers who confronted him on the street: the defendant caused a disturbance at the loading dock of the court house and left the scene; two uniformed officers found him sitting on stairs about a one-minute drive from the court house; the defendant immediately spat on the first uniformed officer who spoke to him and called the officer a bitch; the officers arrested the defendant and transported him in a police cruiser to the station where he spat on the second arresting officer, called him a bitch, threatened to strike him, and later punched him in the shoulder; the officers placed the defendant in a holding cell where he calmed down; upon interacting with the first officer again, the defendant threw toilet water at him; although initially agitated during booking, the defendant changed his behavior when the first arresting officer left the room; and the defendant successfully completed the booking process with another officer. Viewing the totality of this evidence, and only this evidence, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, I must conclude that the trial judge properly denied the defense motion for a required finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. …”

Commonwealth v. Brunette-Silveira (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-035-26) (21 pages) (Hershfang, J.) (Hodgens, J., dissenting) The case was heard by Mark H. Summerville, J., in Boston Municipal Court. Meghan K. Oreste on appeal for the defendant; Megan Keane (David D. McGowan also present) for the commonwealth (Docket No. 24-P-1351) (May 12, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.