Leavis

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Leavis

426 N.E.2d 1182, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1227

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 426 N.E.2d 1182 (Leavis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leavis, 426 N.E.2d 1182, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1227 (Mass. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

1. Leavis, committed to the treatment center at M.C.I. Bridgewater, as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), was denied relief in the Superior Court under G. L. c. 123A, § 9. The oral and documentary evidence from psychiatric expert witnesses was conflicting in various respects. Nevertheless, the trial judge had before him substantial expert evidence from which he could properly find beyond a reasonable doubt (see Commonwealth v. Walsh, 376 Mass. 53, 55 [1978]) that Leavis remained an SDP although his treatment was making progress.

2. The recommendation of the Department of Mental Health (the department) was that relief be denied. The evidence of that recommendation essentially was confined to a statement of the department’s recommendation, without any attempt by the department’s representative to provide hearsay testimony of the type found objectionable in Davis, petitioner, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 734-735 (1979).

3. The denial of the petition for discharge (under G. L. c. 123A, § 9) is affirmed.

So ordered.

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

1. Leavis, committed to the treatment center at M.C.I. Bridgewater, as a sexually dangerous person (SDP), was denied relief in the Superior Court under G. L. c. 123A, § 9. The oral and documentary evidence from psychiatric expert witnesses was conflicting in various respects. Nevertheless, the trial judge had before him substantial expert evidence from which he could properly find beyond a reasonable doubt (see Commonwealth v. Walsh, 376 Mass. 53, 55 [1978]) that Leavis remained an SDP although his treatment was making progress.

2. The recommendation of the Department of Mental Health (the department) was that relief be denied. The evidence of that recommendation essentially was confined to a statement of the department’s recommendation, without any attempt by the department’s representative to provide hearsay testimony of the type found objectionable in Davis, petitioner, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 734-735 (1979).

3. The denial of the petition for discharge (under G. L. c. 123A, § 9) is affirmed.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 N.E.2d 1182, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 958, 1981 Mass. App. LEXIS 1227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leavis-massappct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack