Source: http://masslegalresources.com/tag/e-c
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 15:35:59+00:00

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF E.C.
Plymouth. November 9, 2017. – March 15, 2018.
Incompetent Person, Commitment. Practice, Civil, Civil commitment.
Petition for civil commitment filed in the Brockton Division of the District Court Department on March 4, 2013.
The case was heard by Beverly J. Cannone, J., and a motion for reconsideration was also heard by her.
Plymouth. May 11, 2016. – August 3, 2016.
Present: Grainger, Meade, & Hanlon, JJ.
Division of the District Court Department on March 4, 2013.
for reconsideration was also heard by her.
Edward J. O’Donnell for the petitioner.
denial of the original and amended petitions. We reverse.
G. L. c. 266, § 127. Following a hearing pursuant to G. L.
on August 7, 2012, found E.C. incompetent to stand trial.
would have therefore concluded by March 4.
Court to amend its § 16(c) petition to one pursuant to G. L.
commitment under §§ 7 and 8 because he was no longer a patient.
The judge denied BSH’s subsequent motion for reconsideration.
the dismissal of criminal charges, and determined that G. L.
4 We agree with the parties’ assessment that, although E.C.
pursuant to §§ 7 and 8.
commitment under § 16(c) or §§ 7 and 8. This appeal followed.
Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 425 Mass. 615, 618 (1997).
to do so would achieve an illogical result.’” Commonwealth v.
Hatch, 438 Mass. 618, 622 (2003), quoting from Sullivan v.
language and in the context of the statutory framework.
facility or at the Bridgewater state hospital except . . .
criminal charges, BSH explicitly retained authority over E.C.
over E.C. to proceed on the § 16(c) petition for his commitment.
does not provide for continuing commitment after that dismissal.
from which it is absent, see Commonwealth v. Dodge, 428 Mass.
a whole to produce an internal consistency.” Telesetsky v.
immediately terminate BSH’s authority over a patient.
ability to petition for further commitment after the dismissal.
for continued commitment after charges are dismissed.
purpose.” Board of Educ. v. Assessor of Worcester, 368 Mass.
6 Both G. L. c. 123, §§ 7(b) and 8(b), to which G. L.
For example, the first sentence of § 16(e), inserted by St.
could continue after the dismissal of criminal charges.
maximum sentence he could have received, if so convicted.
establish the date on which the charges must be dismissed.
makes no such reference to an immediate discharge.
criminal charges and accompanying sentences.
commitment order or BSH’s authority.
Appellate Division erred in concluding otherwise.
competent to stand trial prior to BSH’s petition under G. L.
issue whether it was error to deny the motion to amend.
to seek additional commitment pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 16(c).

References: § 127
 § 16
 § 16
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 § 16
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 § 16
 § 16