Court Opinion

ID: 9716412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:38:16.639149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:45.359179
License: Public Domain

Whittemore, J. and Cutter, J.
(dissenting). As we read the transcript, the expert for the Commonwealth gave his only adequately informed opinion on cross-examination. He then agreed with the two experts called by the defendant that the defendant was affected with paranoid schizophrenia and lacked substantial capacity to conform bis conduct to the requirements of law. In all the circumstances we would order a new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, as amended. These include the risk of the jury misunderstanding some of the expert medical opinion, the extended medical history of the defendant’s disease (a 1963 report stated that he was “potentially homicidal”), and, in the light of the history, the evidential significance of the dreadful killing itself as an act inexplicable if tested by normal conduct.