Commonwealth v. Erickson

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Erickson

248 N.E.2d 270, 356 Mass. 63, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 662

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 28, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 N.E.2d 270 (Commonwealth v. Erickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Erickson, 248 N.E.2d 270, 356 Mass. 63, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 662 (Mass. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilkins, C.J.

These cases are identical. Each defendant was indicted for escape on or about February 24, 1967, from the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater. Pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity were entered by order of the judge. Motions for the appointment of a psychiatrist chosen by the defendants and paid for by the Commonwealth to assist in the defence were denied, and the defendants excepted. The judge found as a fact that each defendant was indigent, unable to pay the cost of a psychia[64]*64trist, and at another time had been committed as mentally ill under G. L. c. 123, § 103.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each case. The defendants were sentenced to a term in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole, to be served from and after any sentence each was serving.

The Commonwealth does not argue that the defendants were not entitled to be examined by independent psychiatrists at the expense of the Commonwealth. Its contention is that the defendants were not entitled to be examined by psychiatrists of their own choosing at the expense of the Commonwealth. The defendants do not contend that their right is absolute, but base their argument particularly upon the fact that they were charged with escaping from a State institution in which they were confined as mentally ill.

The exact question before us was decided adversely to the contention of the present defendants in Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 354 Mass. 193, 200 (1968), in which the defendant Bernier was represented by the same counsel who represents the defendants in the cases at bar. We see no reason for departing from that decision. The cases cited by the defendants do not support their argument. ,In fact, some of them are in accord with the Medeiros case. Naples v. United States, 307 F. 2d 618, 624 (Ct. App. D. C.) Perry v. United States, 347 F. 2d 813, 816 (Ct. App. D. C.).

We are confining oral decision to the precise question presented. The motions were rightly denied.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wilkins, C.J.

These cases are identical. Each defendant was indicted for escape on or about February 24, 1967, from the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Bridgewater. Pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity were entered by order of the judge. Motions for the appointment of a psychiatrist chosen by the defendants and paid for by the Commonwealth to assist in the defence were denied, and the defendants excepted. The judge found as a fact that each defendant was indigent, unable to pay the cost of a psychia[64]*64trist, and at another time had been committed as mentally ill under G. L. c. 123, § 103.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty in each case. The defendants were sentenced to a term in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole, to be served from and after any sentence each was serving.

The Commonwealth does not argue that the defendants were not entitled to be examined by independent psychiatrists at the expense of the Commonwealth. Its contention is that the defendants were not entitled to be examined by psychiatrists of their own choosing at the expense of the Commonwealth. The defendants do not contend that their right is absolute, but base their argument particularly upon the fact that they were charged with escaping from a State institution in which they were confined as mentally ill.

The exact question before us was decided adversely to the contention of the present defendants in Commonwealth v. Medeiros, 354 Mass. 193, 200 (1968), in which the defendant Bernier was represented by the same counsel who represents the defendants in the cases at bar. We see no reason for departing from that decision. The cases cited by the defendants do not support their argument. ,In fact, some of them are in accord with the Medeiros case. Naples v. United States, 307 F. 2d 618, 624 (Ct. App. D. C.) Perry v. United States, 347 F. 2d 813, 816 (Ct. App. D. C.).

We are confining oral decision to the precise question presented. The motions were rightly denied.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.E.2d 270, 356 Mass. 63, 1969 Mass. LEXIS 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-erickson-mass-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack