Court Opinion

ID: 9397361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 14:05:40.877142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.311135
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-13158

                COMMONWEALTH    vs.   JOSEPH W. BEATTY.

             Norfolk.      March 10, 2023. - May 25, 2023.

  Present:    Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, & Wendlandt, JJ.

Homicide. Criminal Responsibility. Practice, Criminal, Capital
     case, Competency to stand trial, Instructions to jury.

     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court
Department on October 1, 2009.

    The cases were tried before Thomas A. Connors, J.

     Theodore F. Riordan (Deborah Bates Riordan also present)
for the defendant.
     Pamela Alford, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.

    WENDLANDT, J.       The defendant, Joseph W. Beatty, was

convicted of one count of murder in the first degree on the

theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or

cruelty, and felony-murder in connection with the 2009 killing

of his girlfriend, Mary Beaton (victim), in her Quincy
                                                                   2

apartment.1   The defendant admitted to killing the victim, whom

he strangled and, later, asphyxiated with a pillow; however, he

contended that, due to his mental condition at the time of the

murder, he lacked criminal responsibility for her death.

     On his direct appeal, the defendant maintains that the

trial judge abused his discretion in finding the defendant

competent to stand trial over defense counsel's objections, and

that the jury instructions concerning the consequences of a

verdict of not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility,

while conforming to the then-applicable model jury instructions,

were prejudicial.   He also asks the court to exercise its

authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the degree of

guilt or order a new trial.

     Having carefully reviewed the defendant's claims of error,

as well as the entire record, we affirm the conviction and

discern no reason to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

     1.   Background.   The following facts are supported by the

evidence presented at trial.

     a.   The Commonwealth's case.   On August 29, 2009, around

1:13 P.M., the defendant, his brother, two sisters, and niece

entered the emergency room at Boston Medical Center.    The

defendant was wearing a "raggedy" yellow T-shirt, which was

     1 He also was convicted of one count of aggravated rape in
violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (a).
                                                                      3

covered in blood.     He had blood around his neck and wrist, and

cuts to his wrist and hands.

     At the hospital, the group approached uniformed Boston

police Officer Daniel Quintiliani.     The defendant's brother told

Quintiliani that he needed to speak with the officer because the

defendant "did a bad thing."     Quintiliani asked the defendant

what he had done.    The defendant replied, "I strangled a girl in

her apartment."     The defendant provided Quintiliani with the

victim's name and her address in Quincy.     Upon request for

identification, the defendant produced his own driver's license

and an identification card in the victim's name.     Quintiliani

radioed dispatch to request a well-being check on the victim.

The defendant appeared calm, and Quintiliani had no difficulty

speaking with him.     The defendant's brother removed a knife from

the defendant's pocket and gave it to Quintiliani.

     Thereafter, the defendant entered the hospital's triage

unit.   When a nurse asked him why he was there, the defendant

answered that he had strangled his friend after an argument over

finances.    The defendant denied experiencing visual or auditory

hallucinations and noted that he was a kidney transplant

recipient.   He also reported that he had experienced suicidal

ideation.

     Quintiliani's partner, Boston police Officer Daniel

Korenetsky, who had arrived at the triage area, provided Miranda
                                                                       4

warnings to the defendant;2 the defendant indicated that he

understood and proceeded to ask Korenetsky whether police had

found the victim.      Korenetsky answered in the negative, to which

the defendant replied, "[T]hey're going to have to kick the door

in."       A short time later, Quintiliani learned that Quincy police

had found the deceased victim's body in her apartment.

       At 1:29 P.M., shortly after Korenetsky had provided the

defendant with Miranda warnings, Boston police Detectives Joseph

Leeman and Daniel MacDonald arrived at the triage area.       The

detectives identified themselves and asked the defendant what

had happened.      The defendant told them that, between 5 P.M. and

5:30 P.M. the prior day, he "just snapped" and choked his

girlfriend at her apartment.      At that point, Leeman and

MacDonald stopped the conversation, provided Miranda warnings to

the defendant, and handcuffed him.      The defendant said that he

understood his rights and wanted to speak to the officers;

MacDonald left to get a tape recorder.       By 1:43 P.M., Boston

police Detective Daniel Keeler arrived at the hospital; he also

recited the Miranda warnings to the defendant.       Five minutes

later, MacDonald returned from the police station with a tape

recorder.

       When his brother offered to get the defendant a lawyer,
       2

the defendant replied, "What do I need a lawyer for, to get
eighty years instead of a hundred years?"
                                                                      5

     The defendant told the officers that on the day of the

killing, he went to the victim's apartment, where they drank a

couple of beers, shared a valium pill, and argued about money.

In particular, the victim was disappointed that they could not

afford a trip to Las Vegas; she informed the defendant that she

needed $500 for rent and proposed a less expensive trip to New

York.    At that point, the defendant "just snapped."    He grabbed

the victim's throat and began to strangle her; when she fell to

the floor, the defendant "had sex" with the victim and carried

her into the bedroom.    The defendant saw white foam coming from

the victim's lips, after which he covered her face with a pillow

until she stopped breathing.    The defendant placed a cross on

the victim, placed crucifixes on both sides of her body, put her

underwear on her, and covered her with a blanket.       Before

leaving the apartment, the defendant took knives to "take care

of himself."

     The defendant visibly was upset as he spoke; he added that

"my brain was just doing what it was doing; I had no control

over it."    In response to a question by police that he had to be

angry, the defendant stated:   "[Y]eah, I know but I don't know

what made me angry. . . .    I've never had that anger in my

life."   After a psychiatric resident evaluated the defendant and

determined that he did not require inpatient care, the defendant

was released to police custody.
                                                                       6

     i.   Defendant's activities before and after killing.      A few

days before the killing, between August 26 and August 28, 2009,

the defendant was at Foxwoods Casino with one of his sisters,

his niece, and four of his niece's children.     On the morning of

August 28, the last day of the trip and the day of the murder,

the defendant, "distraught" and crying, told his sister that he

had been molested as a child by a neighbor.3    The family left the

casino shortly thereafter.     The defendant drove two of his

niece's children in his van.    His sister had no concerns about

his driving.

     Later that day, at around 8:30 P.M., approximately three

hours after killing the victim, the defendant stopped at his

niece's home to bring her a cup of coffee.     His niece noticed

that the defendant had a red mark on the side of his head.      When

she asked the defendant what had happened, he replied that he

had slipped and fallen against his van.

     The next morning, August 29, 2009, at around 8 A.M., the

defendant called his niece and told her to tell the family that

he loved them.   Later that morning, the defendant called one of

his sisters and told her that he was at their mother's favorite

place, which his sister knew was a reference to Castle Island in

     3 The defendant later told police that he made this
statement due to paranoia, flashbacks, suicidal thoughts, and
other functional impairments he suffered because of surgery in
June 2009 to remove most of his parathyroid glands.
                                                                      7

the South Boston section of Boston.   Fearing that the defendant

intended to commit suicide, the defendant's two sisters and his

niece drove to Castle Island but could not locate the defendant.

     While searching, the group received a telephone call from

the defendant.   He agreed to meet his sisters and niece outside

a restaurant in the South End section of Boston, across the

street from Boston Medical Center.    The three women arrived at

the meeting place, where they were joined by the defendant's

brother.   Shortly thereafter, the defendant appeared.   His

sister testified that he looked "crazed," "disheveled," and

"distraught"; his niece testified to seeing red marks on the

defendant's neck and wrists.

     On seeing his family, the defendant told them that he "did

a bad thing," a phrase he repeated about twenty-five times.     The

group escorted the defendant across the street to the hospital,

and, as discussed supra, they encountered Quintiliani.

     ii.   Victim's apartment.   Quincy police responded to the

victim's apartment shortly after 1 P.M. on August 29, 2009; the

victim was found naked under a blanket on the bed, deceased.4

     4 At trial, first responders testified that they found the
victim's body covered by a sheet, wearing an ornamental gold
cross, and flanked by two crucifixes. These descriptions
differed from the account provided by the defendant in the
triage area in only one respect: the defendant told officers
that he placed the victim's underwear on her before leaving,
whereas the first responders testified that they found the
victim in a state of total undress.
                                                                    8

She had red scratches on her neck.   Her soiled clothing lay on

the floor near the bed.

    The victim's underpants and vaginal and oral swabs

contained sperm, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing

indicated that the defendant's DNA was consistent with the DNA

mixtures from these samples.   Additionally, a swab of the

victim's neck produced a DNA mixture consistent with the

defendant's DNA.

    A medical examiner testified that the victim had petechial

hemorrhages in her face, eyelids, and mouth; there were

hemorrhages in her neck muscles, and her hyoid bone was broken.

The examiner concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia by

strangulation.

    b.   The defendant's case.   The defense at trial was lack of

criminal responsibility.   Against the advice of counsel, the

defendant testified regarding the events leading to and on the

day of the murder.

    The defendant testified that he had a kidney transplant in

2002 and surgery to remove most of his parathyroid glands in

June 2009.   Both before and after that surgery, he was

forgetful, tired, confused, and doing "weird things," such as

stealing a check from a neighbor so that he could visit a

relative in California.    On the day of the murder, while at

Foxwoods Casino, the defendant heard voices in his head.     The
                                                                    9

voices made threats and commanded him to jump out a window at

the casino.   He had no control over his "subconscious brain";

moreover, he was experiencing paranoia, such as believing that

the driver of a pickup truck threatened to kill him for cashing

stolen checks.

     The defendant stated that his delusions and paranoia

culminated at the victim's apartment, where, following an

argument over finances, voices in his head prompted him, asking,

"[W]hat are we going to do about her?"   In a state of "rage," he

rushed the victim, strangled her to death, and dragged her body

into the bedroom to have sex with her.   The defendant testified

that he had no intention of killing the victim, but that his

mind was "in outer space"5 during the killing.6   The only times

that he heard loud voices after his surgery was while at

Foxwoods Casino and at the victim's apartment.

     5 The defendant added that he was "in a zone that [he had]
never been in in [his] life before, in a zone [he did not] wish
on anybody."

     6 The defendant's trial testimony conflicted with the
account he gave officers at the hospital in several respects.
For example, when provided with transcript pages where he
previously stated that the victim proposed that they go to New
York instead of Las Vegas, the defendant denied that she ever
made that suggestion. The defendant also denied that the victim
requested $500 to pay rent. When asked to explain these
differences, the defendant claimed that his "subconscious brain"
told him to say these things to police at the hospital.
                                                                   10

     Dr. Charles Carroll, a psychologist and the director of

forensic services and psychology at Bridgewater State Hospital,

testified for the defense.   Carroll had evaluated the defendant

in November 2013 and opined that he had schizoaffective

disorder.7   Carroll also noted that the defendant was prone to

having delusions concerning his medical conditions, such as

worrying that he was losing salt through his spine, causing

dehydration, or that he was exposed to mercury and zinc fumes

having lived above a television repair shop.   Carroll offered no

opinion as to whether the defendant's mental disease made him

unable to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his

conduct at the time of the murder.

     c.   Rebuttal.   Dr. Michael Annuziata, a psychiatrist,

testified for the Commonwealth.   He opined that the defendant

had no significant psychiatric disorder, showed no signs of

auditory hallucinations, and possessed adequate intellectual

functioning.   Annuziata opined that the defendant had no mental

     7 "Schizoaffective disorder is a mental health disorder that
is marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as
hallucinations or delusions, and mood disorder symptoms, such as
depression or mania." Schizoaffective Disorder, Mayo Clinic,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/schizoaffective-
disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20354504 [https://perma.cc/2X8D-
KP2E]. Carroll also testified that, when he first evaluated the
defendant in 2010, he did not see any psychotic component to his
diagnosis.
                                                                   11

disease or defect at the time of the murder and, consequently,

was able to recognize the wrongfulness of his conduct.

    d.   Procedural history.   The defendant was indicted in

October 2009 on one count of murder in the first degree in

violation of G. L. c. 265, § 1, and one count of aggravated rape

in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (a).    For approximately the

next three years, the defendant would alternate between pretrial

detention at a house of correction and commitment at Bridgewater

State Hospital pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 18 (a).    In

July 2010, the defendant, while awaiting trial, attempted to

harm himself.   He was sent to Bridgewater State Hospital for a

thirty-day evaluation.   At the conclusion of the evaluation,

Carroll opined that the defendant had major depressive disorder

with no psychotic component.   Following an evidentiary hearing,

held in February 2012, the defendant was found not competent to

stand trial.

    The defendant was evaluated at Bridgewater State Hospital

for a second time in October 2013; Carroll diagnosed the

defendant with schizoaffective disorder presenting in the form

of psychotic delusions and paranoia.    At a December 2013

hearing, a judge again found the defendant not competent.

    On July 7, 2014, following a hearing, the judge found the

defendant competent to stand trial.    In September 2015, the

judge committed the defendant to Bridgewater State Hospital,
                                                                   12

pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 18 (a), because he "require[d]

hospitalization at [that] time . . . rather than await trial in

a jail setting."   The judge agreed to a second commitment order

pursuant to § 18 (a) on June 10, 2016, and a third on July 31,

2017.

    On February 1, 2018, the judge again found the defendant

competent to stand trial.    A jury trial commenced on

February 27, 2019.   At several points during trial, defense

counsel raised the possibility that the defendant was

incompetent to stand trial.    Each time, the judge ordered a

competency evaluation and determined that the defendant was

competent.

    On March 18, 2019, the jury found the defendant guilty on

both counts.   As to the count of murder in the first degree, the

jury found the defendant guilty on the theories of deliberate

premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder.

The defendant was sentenced to life without parole and ordered

to serve a concurrent sentence of from twenty-five to thirty

years on the rape count.    The defendant filed a timely notice of

appeal.

    2.    Discussion.   On appeal, the defendant maintains that

the judge abused his discretion in finding the defendant

competent to stand trial over defense counsel's objections that

he was unable to work with his client, that the judge should
                                                                     13

have modified the jury instruction as to the consequences of a

verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal

responsibility -- the so-called Mutina jury instruction8 –- to

comport with Commonwealth v. Chappell, 473 Mass. 191 (2015), and

that we should exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E,

to reduce the defendant's convictions or grant a new trial.     We

address each argument in turn.

     a.   Determination of defendant's competency to stand trial.

The defendant first contends that the judge abused his

discretion in finding the defendant was competent to stand trial

despite defense counsel's representations that the defendant was

unable to communicate with counsel with the requisite degree of

rational understanding and that he did not seem to understand

the proceedings against him.

     For a criminal defendant to be deemed competent to stand

trial, a judge must find, at the time of trial, that the

defendant (1) "has sufficient present ability to consult with

his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding"

and (2) "has a rational as well as factual understanding of the

proceedings against him."   Commonwealth v. Russin, 420 Mass.

     8 As discussed in further detail infra, a Mutina instruction
is a jury instruction setting forth the consequences of a
verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal
responsibility. See Commonwealth v. Mutina, 366 Mass. 810, 823
& n.12 (1975).
                                                                  14

309, 317 (1995), quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402,

402 (1960).   See Commonwealth v. Dias, 402 Mass. 645, 647-648

(1988) (same).   "The fact that a defendant suffers from . . .

some form of mental illness does not, by itself, mean that he is

unable to work with his attorney."   Commonwealth v. Goodreau,

442 Mass. 341, 351 (2004).

    The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving the

defendant's competency by a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Commonwealth v. Prater, 420 Mass. 569, 573-574 (1995).     We

review a trial judge's determination that a defendant is

competent to stand trial for an abuse of discretion.   See

Commonwealth v. Hung Tan Vo, 427 Mass. 464, 468-469 (1998).

    In determining whether a defendant is competent, a judge

may consider, inter alia, "the defendant's demeanor and behavior

at the trial, reports of psychiatric examinations of the

defendant, statements to the judge about the defendant's conduct

and mental condition, and the testimony of expert witnesses at

the trial about the defendant's conduct and condition."

Commonwealth v. Hill, 375 Mass. 50, 54-55 (1978).   Weight must

be given to a judge's own observations of a defendant's demeanor

and behavior, with the observations made closest to or during

trial being the "most appropriate" in determining competency.

Commonwealth v. Jones, 479 Mass. 1, 14 (2018).
                                                                   15

    i.   Defense counsel's representations and judge's

responses.    On the first day of trial, defense counsel raised

several concerns regarding the defendant's competency; namely,

that the defendant did not understand the difference between a

jury trial and a plea, that he was too deferential to counsel's

trial strategy, and that he held an unrealistic belief that

trial would last a single day.    The judge ordered a competency

evaluation.

    After interviewing the defendant and reviewing prior

competency records, a court forensic psychologist, Dr. Heather

Jackson, indicated that the defendant accurately identified the

parties and charges against him, possible dispositions, and

described how he wanted to proceed.    The defendant also

understood that trial would last longer than one day and was

able to explain what the trial process would entail.    Jackson

opined that the defendant was not "experiencing any significant

deficits of his competency-related abilities within his factual

or rational understanding" or exhibiting severe symptoms of

mental illness; she did not recommend further evaluation.

    Following Jackson's report, the judge made findings that

the defendant met both the functional and cognitive prongs of

the Dusky test:    "[The defendant] is able to have a rational

understanding of what is occurring[,] and he is also able to

identify the various participants in his trial process . . . and
                                                                       16

is able to communicate with counsel."       See Dusky, 362 U.S. at

402.       As to defense counsel's representation that the defendant

harbored an unrealistic view that trial would last one day, the

judge credited Jackson's representation that the defendant no

longer held that belief and that, contrary to defense counsel's

earlier representation, the defendant was not agreeing "just for

the sake of agreeing with her."       The judge noted defense

counsel's objection and began empanelling the jury.

       On the second day of trial, defense counsel raised further

concerns; specifically, the defendant requested new counsel and

claimed that the court room-provided water was affecting his

medication.9      The judge tabled the matter and continued with jury

empanelment.      By the end of the day, the defendant withdrew his

request for new counsel, and following a discussion, the judge

resolved the defendant's issue with his water by asking him to

consult with the jail medical staff.       The judge also noted his

observation that defense counsel had been interacting with his

client during empanelment.       During this discussion, defense

counsel raised two additional concerns:      first, that the

defendant was fixating on medical records related to what

counsel considered to be a nonviable defense; and second, that

       Jackson later confirmed that, while the defendant was not
       9

taking psychiatric medications, he was taking medication for his
kidney transplant.
                                                                  17

the defendant was insisting that there were "some outstanding

phone records" that were in the possession of the Boston Red

Sox.

       To address counsel's ongoing concerns, the judge delayed

the start of the third day of trial to allow Jackson to examine

the defendant again.10   Following an hour-long evaluation,

Jackson reported that the defendant continued to have a factual

understanding of court proceedings, expressed a preference

regarding how he wanted to proceed, and was not demonstrating

serious deficits in his ability to rationally work with counsel.

Moreover, Jackson noted that the defendant denied auditory

hallucinations and was able to answer her questions clearly and

coherently.   The defendant also was able to explain that the

missing telephone records concerned a "flip" cell phone with a

Red Sox sticker, not the baseball club.

       Regarding the suicidal thoughts that the defendant had been

experiencing that morning, Jackson noted that he lacked any

immediate plans to harm himself.    Jackson was in contact with

medical personnel at the house of correction, who were following

the case and the stress it caused the defendant; she also

learned that "two or three" of the defendant's prior G. L.

       As part of her second evaluation, Jackson reviewed
       10

Bridgewater State Hospital reports from 2010 to 2017, her notes
from the previous evaluation, and contacted the house of
correction where the defendant was then being held.
                                                                   18

c. 123, § 18 (a), commitments stemmed from suicidal ideation,

not psychotic symptoms.

    Jackson opined that the defendant was competent to stand

trial and did not recommend further evaluation.   The following

exchange ensued:

    Defense counsel: "Your honor, [the defendant] is suicidal,
    diagnosed with a serious mental illness. He's unmedicated
    for a couple of years now. He's not able to help me with
    his case."

    The judge: "I have no evidence of that, sir.    You can't
    make argument that you -- injecting facts."

    . . .

    Defense counsel: "I'm asking the court as the factfinder
    to infer that given all of the circumstances that you
    gathered thus far, your Honor, that [the defendant is] not
    someone that I can work with."

The judge found that the defendant was competent to stand trial.

The judge explained that, in finding the defendant competent, he

was relying on the following:   first, the court clinician twice

found the defendant to be competent in the span of three days;

second, the defendant indicated a readiness to work with his

counsel; third, suicidal ideation is not tantamount to lack of

competency; and fourth, some of the defendant's most recent

G. L. c. 123, § 18 (a), commitments were attributable to
                                                                   19

suicidal thoughts, not his diagnosed condition of

schizoaffective disorder.11

     At the end of the sixth day of trial, the judge noted that

the defendant and defense counsel had conferred with each other

as evidence was introduced.   On the morning of the seventh day

of trial, the judge again observed that the defendant had been

an active participant throughout trial.12   Later that day, during

discussion of the sexual assault kit, defense counsel requested

a sidebar and informed the judge that the defendant had ceased

communicating with him, adding, "I don't think he's physically

doing okay now."   The judge excused the jury for the day.   The

parties discussed the defendant's mental state; the judge

acknowledged that the defendant "had a somewhat different affect

. . . than he ha[d] had through all of the earlier portions of

the trial."

     11See Commonwealth v. Laurore, 437 Mass. 65, 79 (2002)
("Even an entirely rational defendant would be depressed, and
might be suicidal, during a murder trial where the proof against
him is substantial, and where he is facing life imprisonment");
Commonwealth v. Lameire, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 271, 277 (2000)
(claimed suicide attempt during trial did not preclude judge's
finding of competency).

     12The judge observed, "For the record, the court has
observed throughout the trial that [the defendant] has
interacted, that he has been alert, he has been watching the
screen when exhibits have been up. He has been interacting and
speaking with counsel throughout the trial."
                                                                   20

    The judge requested the assistance of a court room

clinician, and Dr. Leah Robertson joined the parties.   Robertson

examined the defendant.   She reported that the past week, which

featured significant video evidence of the victim and the crime

scene, had been stressful for the defendant, that the

defendant's thoughts had kept him awake the previous night, and

that the defendant was tired, distracted, and having difficulty

focusing.   Without opining as to his competency, Robertson

recommended that the defendant be sent to Bridgewater State

Hospital for observation and treatment.   The judge ordered the

defendant committed pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 18 (a).

    Following a weekend break, the defendant returned to court

on the next trial date, at which point the judge was given

medical reports opining that the defendant was medically stable;

defense counsel shared his observations of the defendant's

difficulty focusing that morning.   During a mid-morning break,

the judge clarified that he had reviewed Carroll's 2015 report,

a 2017 report from a court clinician, and prior counsel's motion

to withdraw.   The judge made findings:

    "The [c]ourt does not see any difference between what is
    occurring now and what's consistently been occurring all
    along, which is that [the defendant] has complained about
    voices which are characterize[d] sometimes as negative
    thoughts. They have not seemed to intrude at all, and, in
    fact, Dr. Carroll raised significant questions about
    whether or not they were legitimate. . . . [W]hile there
    was a period of incompetency some time ago, the recent[]
    [reports] have all come back that he's competent."
                                                                  21

The trial continued.   On the ninth day of trial, the judge

observed that the defendant "was engaged with counsel several

times, was conferring with counsel several times," and had taken

notes when a witness testified.   On the tenth day of trial, the

defendant testified.   At the conclusion of his testimony, the

judge stated that the defendant responded normally to the

questions asked; in addition, the judge noted that the defendant

"has shown his functionality through this trial," and "[e]ven if

his counsel may feel that [testifying] was not the most prudent

choice that he had[,] that was his choice under the law."

    At sentencing, the judge referenced his previous

observations and stated that he had "no question" about the

defendant's competency throughout the proceedings.

    ii.   No abuse of discretion.    As set forth supra, the judge

made multiple determinations regarding the defendant's

competency over the course of the trial.     In doing so, the judge

considered the testimony of court clinicians, psychiatric

evaluations, his own observations of the defendant's behavior,

and statements from defense counsel about the defendant's

"conduct and mental condition."     Hill, 375 Mass. at 54-55.

Significantly, the judge made these determinations during the

trial, see Jones, 479 Mass. at 15 ("Because competency may be

fluid . . . it is most significant that the defendant was found
                                                                   22

competent in a hearing during the trial" [emphasis added]), with

the benefit of contemporaneous psychiatric evaluations.

     Contrary to the defendant's argument that the judge ignored

defense counsel's concerns, as set forth supra, with every

concern raised by counsel, the judge responded by seeking the

assistance of medical experts, reviewing the defendant's mental

health history, and sending the defendant to Bridgewater State

Hospital for further evaluation when it became necessary.

Additionally, the judge actively monitored the defendant's

ability to communicate with and assist his lawyer,13 scanning for

manifestations of incompetency as the trial progressed.14    See

Dusky, 362 U.S. at 408.   See also Commonwealth v. Chatman, 473

Mass. 840, 847-848 (2016).   The judge properly considered the

     13For example, when the defendant indicated that he wanted
to testify against the advice of counsel, the judge engaged him
in a conversation about his knowledge of the right to testify in
his defense. The defendant responded, "Right. [My lawyer]
didn't tell me the laws about [testifying,] but he said that was
my right if I wanted to or not to and he said it was best for me
not to testify."

     14Contrary to the defendant's argument, the judge did not
base his findings solely on his own observations. The record
shows that the judge's comments regarding the observed working
relationship between counsel and client was one data point,
among many, used to evaluate competency. In fact, the judge's
comments postdated two separate evaluations of the defendant,
conducted by the court room clinician. See Commonwealth v.
Companonio, 445 Mass. 39, 50 (2005), S.C., 472 Mass. 1004 (2015)
("The time frame for determining a defendant's competency to
stand trial is the condition of the defendant at the time of
trial" [citation and quotation omitted]).
                                                                 23

expert opinions of Jackson and Robertson, the staff of

Bridgewater State Hospital, psychiatric reports dating back to

2014, and his own observations at trial, when considering

defense counsel's representations as to the defendant's

behavior.   See Commonwealth v. Gibson, 474 Mass. 726, 738 (2016)

(judge not required to credit defense counsel's unsupported

claim of incompetency); Commonwealth v. Vailes, 360 Mass. 522,

524 (1971) (judge entitled to rely on recent "psychiatric

report[s] as one of the elements bearing on the issue of the

defendant's competenc[y]").15

     In sum, the judge did not abuse his discretion in finding

the defendant competent to stand trial.

     b.   The Mutina instruction.   The defendant next argues that

the judge erred by instructing the jury on the consequences of a

verdict of lack of criminal responsibility as set forth in the

Model Jury Instructions on Homicide (2018).    The defendant

maintains that all references to commitment time should have

     15The judge referenced the 2015 report by Carroll ("[I]n my
opinion, [the defendant] currently has a full factual and
rational understanding of the proceedings against him"), and the
2017 report by court clinician Dr. Frederick Kelso ("[I]n my
opinion [the defendant] is now competent to stand trial"). See
Vailes, 360 Mass. at 524. Moreover, on the third day of trial,
the judge learned that several of the defendant's pretrial
hospitalizations were for suicidal ideation, not his
schizoaffective disorder. See Goodreau, 442 Mass. at 351-352
(defendant's suicidal ideation prior to plea "does not cast
doubt on the opinion that he was competent").
                                                                    24

been omitted from the instruction to avoid suggesting that the

defendant could be released following a brief stay in a mental

hospital.

    A Mutina instruction is a jury instruction that outlines

the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of

criminal responsibility.    See Commonwealth v. Mutina, 366 Mass.

810, 823 & n.12 (1975).    Its function at the end of trial is

    "to avoid unnecessary speculation by the jury and ensure
    that they . . . understand 'what protection they and their
    fellow citizens will have if they conscientiously apply the
    law to the evidence and arrive at a verdict of not guilty
    by reason of [lack of criminal responsibility] –- a verdict
    which necessarily requires the chilling determination that
    the defendant is an insane killer not legally responsible
    for his acts.'"

Chappell, 473 Mass. at 206, quoting Mutina, 366 Mass. at 822.

    Prior to this court's decision in Chappell, the Mutina

instruction mentioned two time periods.    First, it explained

that if a defendant were found not guilty by reason of a lack of

criminal responsibility, the judge could order the defendant

hospitalized at a facility for a period of forty days for

observation and examination (observation period).    Second, the

instruction noted that, if a defendant remained mentally ill and

discharge would create a substantial likelihood of serious harm

to the defendant or others, then the defendant could be

committed to a mental health facility for six months (commitment
                                                                       25

period).    See Model Jury Instructions on Homicide 11-12 (2013);

Commonwealth v. Waweru, 480 Mass. 173, 188 (2018).

    The model Mutina instruction, as outlined supra,

"underestimate[d] the potential . . . length of confinement of a

defendant found not criminally responsible" in the minds of

jurors.    Chappell, 473 Mass. at 205.    See Commonwealth v.

Johnston, 467 Mass. 674, 701-702 (2014) (judge did not err in

refusing to provide defendant's proposed addition to model jury

instructions that "he could spend the rest of his life in a

locked facility").   Accordingly, the court in Chappell proposed

a provisional instruction that (1) omitted reference to the

observation period and (2) clarified that the commitment period,

subject to the court's review, could be indefinite:      "we think

an instruction that omits references to specific time frames for

observation and mentions the potential for successive commitment

orders that could span the duration of the defendant's life

. . . may better accomplish the[] purpose[]" of the Mutina

instruction.   Chappell, 473 Mass. at 206.     The 2018 revisions to

the model jury instructions reflect the Mutina instruction

proposed by the court in Chappell.       See Model Jury Instructions

on Homicide 11-12 (2018).

    In the present case, the defendant asked the judge to omit

not only the observation period, but also the six-month
                                                                    26

commitment period from his instructions.16   The defendant

contends that the rationale for omitting reference to the forty-

day observation period applies with equal force to the six-month

initial commitment period.   As set forth supra, however, the

court in Chappell considered two periods of confinement –- an

observation period and a commitment period; the court

recommended omission of the former, not the latter.     Chappell,

473 Mass. at 206.   We see no reason to modify that conclusion.

     Here, the judge instructed the jury using language

virtually identical to the Mutina instruction from the 2018

Model Jury Instructions on Homicide:

     "If the court concludes that the defendant is mentally ill,
     and that his discharge would create a substantial
     likelihood of serious harm to himself or others, then the
     court will grant the petition and the defendant will be
     committed to a proper mental facility or Bridgewater State
     Hospital initially for a period of six months. At the end
     of that six months, and every year thereafter, the court
     will review the order of commitment. . . . There is no
     limit to the number of such renewed orders of commitment as
     long as the defendant continues to be mentally ill and
     dangerous. If these conditions do continue, the defendant
     may remain committed for the duration of his life."

     16The defendant proposed the following alterations to the
Mutina instruction set forth in the model instructions
(underlined text are additions, strikethroughs are deletions):

     "If the court concludes that the defendant is mentally ill
     and that his discharge would create a substantial
     likelihood of serious harm to himself or others, then the
     court will grant the petition and commit the defendant to a
     proper mental facility or to Bridgewater State Hospital.,
     initially for a period of six months. At the end of the six
     months and every year thereafter, the court The court will
     periodically reviews the order of commitment."
                                                                  27

This was not error.17   See Commonwealth v. Bonner, 489 Mass. 268,

285 (2022), quoting Commonwealth v. Howard, 479 Mass. 52, 61

(2018) ("we have urged trial judges to adhere to the Model Jury

Instructions on Homicide, and to 'proceed with caution' when not

doing so"); Green, petitioner, 475 Mass. 624, 629 (2016)

("Instructions that convey the proper legal standard,

particularly when tracking model jury instructions, are deemed

correct").   See also Commonwealth v. Aduayi, 488 Mass. 658, 675-

676 (2021) (judge did not err in giving pre-Chappell Mutina

instruction where judge employed model jury instruction

applicable at time of defendant's trial).18

     c.   Review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.   We recognize that

the defendant presented substantial evidence that he lacked

criminal responsibility at the time he killed the victim.

     17Although the defendant sought to modify the Mutina
instruction to address the concern that the jury might believe a
long-term or lifetime commitment was precluded by a verdict of
lack of criminal responsibility, the portion of the instruction
stating expressly that the defendant could be committed for his
lifetime was provided. See Chappell, 473 Mass. at 205.

     18The defendant's reliance on Aduayi is misplaced. There,
we affirmed a conviction of murder in the first degree although
the trial judge included time frames of observation and
commitment in his instruction on lack of criminal
responsibility. Aduayi, 488 Mass. at 673-674. In doing so, we
noted that the defendant's trial predated our decision in
Chappell, and consequently, the defendant was not entitled to
the benefit of the modified instruction, which was prospective
only. Id. at 675.
                                                                   28

However, the Commonwealth presented substantial evidence to the

contrary.   The jury were entitled to reject the testimony and

opinions of the defendant and his expert and instead to credit

the contrary evidence, including the opinion of the

Commonwealth's expert.   In short, the jury were entitled to

conclude that the defendant was criminally responsible.   See

Johnston, 467 Mass. at 706 ("Tragic as this case is, it is a

case where the question of criminal responsibility was truly for

the jury, and justice does not require that their verdict be

disturbed").   Based on our careful review of the entire record,

we decline to reduce the degree of guilt, order a new trial, or

grant other relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

                                    Judgments affirmed.