Court Opinion

ID: 9726981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:15:47.964921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:32.417334
License: Public Domain

Tauro, C.J.
The defendant appeals pursuant to G. L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, from a conviction of murder in the first degree and from the denial of his motion for a new trial.
Briefly, the facts are these. Around midnight on March 16, 1971, the defendant approached Ruth Achorn on the front steps of her home as she returned from a date. He stared at Ruth and her companion for about a minute, then raised his hand and fired two shots. One shot hit Ruth and killed her. The defendant fled, disassembled the gun, and threw it in the woods. He was apprehended about an hour and forty minutes later at McLean Hospital, where he was found crouching in a comer. He was taken to the police station where he “just grunted” in response to Miranda warnings and made no response to questions asked of him.
At trial, the prosecution offered no evidence regarding the defendant’s mental capacity, relying instead on the “presumption of sanity” and on the circumstances surrounding the crime. The defendant presented lay witnesses who testified as to their observations of the defendant from his childhood up to the date of the offense. In addition, he called two qualified psychiatrists and introduced medical records of his stay at McLean Hospital. Relevant portions of this testimony will be discussed where appropriate in the course of this opinion.
The defendant assigns as error the trial judge’s refusal to give requested instruction no. 9, which would have explained to the jury the defendant’s postverdict status if found not guilty by reason of insanity.1 He further assigns *812as error the judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial. We find no reversible error in either of these assignments. However, pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, the entire case is before us for consideration on the law and the facts, Commonwealth v. Bearse, 358 Mass. 481 (1970); Commonwealth v. Ransom, 358 Mass. 580 (1970), and we are required “to consider the whole case broadly to determine whether there was any miscarriage of justice.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 346 Mass. 107, 109 (1963). Commonwealth v. Ransom, supra, at 583. On thorough examination of the transcript and record and pursuant to our power under § 33E, we conclude that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and we reverse the conviction.
We recognize, of course, that the obligations imposed by § 33E require our most serious deliberation before we disturb the verdict of a jury who heard the evidence and saw the witnesses. “Regard for the public interest impels us to use with restraint our power under § 33E.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 364 Mass. 145, 151 (1973). However, “[o]ur power to award a new trial without regard to technical rules of law should be exercised with primary focus on ultimate justice in the particular case. This means to us that we must concern ourselves primarily with the particular defendant and the particular facts.” Commonwealth v. Geraway, 364 Mass. 168, 184 (1973). We turn to the particular facts which compel us to exercise this power in the instant case.
Although the fact is not mentioned in the briefs, there was testimony that the defendant is a young man with a history of mental illness on both sides of the family. He had been dating the deceased, Ruth Achorn, for a period from October, 1969, to July, 1970. At that time, the relationship began to deteriorate and Harry became very jealous and *813possessive. The testimony of Mrs. Mutina (Harry’s mother) and Mrs. Achorn (Ruth’s mother), both registered nurses, indicated that Harry’s behavior changed markedly about this time. He began to complain about breathing difficulties and stomach pains. He appeared upset and withdrawn, ignored his work, and left the house in a shambles. He began to “shadow” Ruth, and on one occasion slapped her. In November, 1970, he hit Ruth, dislocating her jaw.
About this time he began making bizarre statements; his speech became thick and he was “very quiet, very withdrawn, listless, pallid.” He became very secretive and quiet, while continuing to follow Ruth and to telephone her without speaking. Early in 1971 Harry was involved in a car accident near where Ruth lived, and two weeks later he was found in the Achorn house. When confronted, he told the Achoms he would never hurt “Ruthie,” but was told he had already done so twice. Harry cried, and was advised to seek psychiatric help.
Shortly thereafter, Harry’s parents arranged to have him taken to McLean Hospital where he was subsequently admitted. While at McLean, he refused visits from his parents and became very hostile. He was discharged from McLean against medical advice on March 3, 1971, and walked home through a snowstorm. After his return home, he screamed when spoken to, looked haggard and drawn, and continued to make bizarre statements.
Harry’s father and a police lieutenant testified as to Harry’s behavior after his arrest. He did not respond to questions and sat very rigid with his eyes closed tightly. He was asked what he had done with the gun, and after twenty minutes muttered “woods, woods.” The remainder of the time he just sat with his head down, tense and stiff.
At the trial, the McLean Hospital records were admitted and they included a consultation note signed by Dr. Leff, a staff physician, giving a brief history of the defendant’s life and family. The provisional diagnosis on admission was “schizophrenic process, acute paranoid type,” with Dr. LefFs statement: “I feel that the danger of loss of control of *814angry aggressive impulses is great and is recognized by the patient on some level.” On discharge, the McLean records showed a diagnosis of “Passive-Dependent Personality with hysterical and paranoid features, unimproved.” Records of the Bridgewater State Hospital, to which the defendant was admitted on March 23, 1971, were introduced and showed various diagnoses, all of which included some mention of possible schizophrenia.
Two qualified psychiatrists testified for the defendant. The first was Dr. Leonard R. Friedman, who saw him at the Billerica house of correction the day after the shooting. His ultimate diagnosis was “acute schizophrenic illness.” He stated that the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law on March 16-17, 1971, and that he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct on those dates. The doctor felt more strongly about the former than the latter view.
Dr. Friedman described the defendant’s mental illness and explained how the events beginning July, 1970, were symptomatic of his disorder. Additionally, he explained that the McLean diagnosis of personality disorder was not inconsistent with his diagnosis, since the defendant was not medicated while at McLean and did not talk freely with the doctors there. His testimony was consistent with the observations of the lay witnesses, and in fact supported them.
Dr. Samuel Epstein, who was appointed by the court on motion of the Commonwealth, testified that the defendant “is mentally ill with a schizophrenic disorder of insidious onset, [although the early manifestations were those of a passive-aggressive personality with paranoid trends.” He further stated that the defendant was suffering from this illness at the time of the shooting, and “was not able to conform his conduct to that which he knew was wrongful [sic] by virtue of his mental disorder.” Dr. Epstein explained the basis for his conclusions and attempted to harmonize the McLean diagnosis. In his opinion, that diagnosis reflected an earlier stage of the defendant’s *815illness, and was not inconsistent with his ultimate findings and conclusions.
In spite of a very detailed and skillful cross-examination, neither Dr. Friedman nor Dr. Epstein was shaken from his diagnosis as testified to in direct examination. Dr. Epstein did not retreat from his position, stating “to me, it is fairly classical that this is the way insidious, paranoid schizophrenics develop and behave.” Dr. Friedman testified on cross-ex'amination that, although the defendant had some capacity to appreciate criminality, it was “[v]cry little. That is, if a policeman was standing over his shoulder relating the law to him, it still wouldn’t help.” He denied this was a borderline case, and in answer to the last question on cross-examination, “Is it fair to say that you don’t know how accurate your diagnosis is?” he answered, “I will disagree with you because I have a very good idea about the accuracy of my diagnosis.”
The prosecution did not introduce any independent evidence bearing on the sole issue of criminal responsibility. It relied instead on the “presumption of sanity,”2 on its cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, and on the circumstances surrounding the shooting. Commonwealth v. Ricard, 355 Mass. 509, 514 (1969).
*816General Laws c. 278, § 33E, provides that, in capital cases, this court may order a new trial where it is “satisfied that the verdict was against the law or the weight of the evidence.” We are to exercise this power where, in our judgment, the verdict “... is so greatly against the weight of the evidence as to induce in ... [our] mind[s] the strong belief that it was not due to a careful consideration of the evidence, but that it was the product of bias, misapprehension or prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Gricus, 317 Mass. 403, 406 (1944), quoting from Scannell v. Boston Elev. Ry. 208 Mass. 513, 514 (1911). In light of the absence of any affirmative evidence of the defendant’s sanity and the very strong evidence of his lack of criminal responsibility, we are convinced that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Cox, supra. We are bolstered in our conclusion by two additional factors: the refusal of the judge to give the defendant’s requested instruction no. 9, and the testimony of Dr. Epstein regarding the defendant’s prognosis.
As previously noted, the defendant requested an instruction explaining what would happen if the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity. This request was denied. The jury may well have misunderstood the consequences of such a verdict and may have based their verdict of guilty on fears that the defendant would go free if they acquitted him on the ground of insanity. This situation was aggravated by the testimony of Dr. Epstein, over the defendant’s objection, that the prognosis was poor, that the defendant would continue to be dangerous and a menace, and that there was a likelihood of further trouble with the defendant unless he were treated in a maximum security hospital.3 Had the jury *817been aware of the true disposition after a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, they might have been more disposed to render a verdict based on the evidence, free from their understandable fears for the safety and security of the public.
In light of what we have said, this case will be remanded to the Superior Court for a new trial. Although our action pursuant to § 33E is dispositive, we would be remiss if we did not consider the defendant’s request for an instruction regarding the postconviction status of one found not guilty by reason of insanity which, in all probability, will be raised if the defendant is retried.
The principal argument for rejecting the practice of instructing juries as to the legal consequences of their verdicts in criminal cases seems to lie in the conviction that, in reaching their verdicts, jurors should be shielded from extraneous influences and should arrive at their verdicts only on a dispassionate consideration of the relevant and credible evidence presented to them in the adversary process. See, e.g., State v. Park, 159 Maine 328 (1963); People v. Adams, 26 N. Y. 2d 129 (1970), cert. den. 399 U. S. 931 (1970); Lonquest v. State, 495 P. 2d 575 (Wyo. 1972), cert. den. 409 U. S. 1006 (1972),4 To inform jurors of the consequences of their verdicts is apparently seen, and in most cases with good cause, as inviting result-oriented verdicts and possible deviation from the basic issues of a defendant’s guilt or innocence. This process, if allowed without restriction, could lead to the jury’s usurpation of the judge’s sentencing prerogatives and duties and the Legislature’s policy determining functions.
Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to deny what trial judges and lawyers have long recognized. Jurors do not come to their temporary judicial service as sterile intellectual mechanisms purged of all those subconscious factors which have formed their characters and temperaments such as racial or ethnic background, sex, economic status, in*818tellectual capacity, family status, religious persuasion, political leanings, educational attainment, moral convictions, employment experience, military service or their individual appreciations of the social problems of the moment.
Indeed, this court has recognized that such factors can affect the intellectual judgments of a juror without any consciousness of bias or prejudice and, for this very reason, has supported the jury system — which provides a fair cross section of the community — as the best protection against possible abuse or failure of judgment by even best intentioned individuals. Commonwealth v. Bellino, 320 Mass. 635 (1947), cert. den. 330 U. S. 832 (1947). Commonwealth v. Ricard, 355 Mass. 509, 512 (1969). Opinion of the Justices, 360 Mass. 877 (1971). See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970).
In recognizing the operative effect of such factors on jurors’ deliberations and to counter balance them in so far as practically attainable, the courts have insisted on the establishment and maintenance of procedures to insure that juries are fairly drawn. By various procedural and evidentiary rules, the courts have established devices to withhold from jurors facts which might cause the subversion of their intellectual processes and, instead, elicit a verdict predicated on an emotional reaction.
For example, a trial judge acting in the exercise of his sound discretion may refuse to allow gruesome, color photographs of a murder victim to be entered in evidence even though, in the abstract, those photographs may be relevant and credible evidence. Compare Commonwealth v. Smith, 350 Mass. 600 (1966).
Again, the Bruton5 rule prohibiting the introduction in evidence of one defendant’s statement incriminating a codefendant recognizes that, despite the intellectual accuracy of curative instructions and the good faith efforts of jurors to comply with them, it is unrealistic to expect that jurors can by some mental exercise blot from their minds *819the effects of having heard such statements. See Commonwealth v. Sarro, 356 Mass. 100 (1969).
Despite his good will, maturity, acumen and sense of civic responsibility and despite his willingness to accept and his efforts to apply judicial instructions, the juror comes to the court room complete with that knowledge and those experiences, expectations, fears and frustrations which have shaped his character and attitudes. Quite apart from questions of obvious bias or admitted prejudice, no juror enters into his temporary judicial service stripped of his background and emotions. To hold otherwise would be to defy human experience. Indeed, the recognition of this fact underlies our system of peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
Several frequently recurring types of situations substantiate the existence of this fact. Prosecutors know well the difficulty of obtaining convictions in drunken driving cases where conviction automatically leads to a license suspension.6 Quite often, the jurors’ aversion to convicting in such cases has little to do with the sufficiency of the admissible and credible evidence presented to them at trial. Rather, it is sometimes based on their social views toward drinking and their common knowledge of the inconvenient effects of the loss of a driver’s license for an extended period of time. Furthermore, where the evidence reveals that the defendant depends on driving for his livelihood, the chance of conviction is substantially reduced, as jurors may acquit in order to avoid what they might consider to be unduly harsh economic sanctions.7
*820Similarly, convictions are difficult to obtain in rape cases where there has been no serious violence other than the sex act itself and where the victim is a knowledgeable adult whose indiscreet conduct has, in the jury’s opinion, contributed to the situation culminating in her rape. The same is true in “statutory rape” cases where the defendant as well as the victim is young and where they have been involved in a close and continuing relationship over an extended period of time.* ***8
On the civil side, the so called “deep pocket” rationale may lessen the chance of a favorable verdict for an impersonal corporation, particularly if there is an appealing plaintiff such as a seriously injured child. This is true despite the fact that the law and the facts may strongly indicate the lack of the corporate defendant’s liability.
Juries are generally instructed by judges in their charges and urged by counsel in their argument that they must not leave their common sense outside the jury room. In rendering a verdict, the evidence and the judge’s instructions are undoubtedly considered within the framework of that common sense which includes the jury’s collective concept of justice derived in turn from an amalgam of the respective juror’s lifetime of personal experience. It is for this reason that the jury system has been described from time to time as a necessary device in our jurisprudence to blunt the sometimes sharp cutting edge of the law.
This is not to say that a jury, in deciding questions of guilt or innocence, are entitled to disregard the law as given to them by the judge or, in effect, to become an ex post facto Legislature with respect to the case entrusted to them. Neither are they allowed to consider facts relating to the case but not presented to them at trial, such as an inadmissible confession previously reported by the news *821media, nor to consider irrelevant facts relating to the defendant. We recognize, however, that jurors are not disembodied spirits arriving at intellectual judgments in a vacuum.
If one accepts the rationality of this premise, then it is most difficult to rationalize with any compelling degree of logic or common sense the severe strictures against informing a jury of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Ordinarily, a jury are confronted with only two alternatives — a verdict of not guilty or a verdict of guilty. Only in rare cases is there, a third alternative — not guilty by reason of insanity. Ordinarily, the jury know that a verdict of guilty will lead to the imposition of an appropriate sanction including incarceration if necessary in the best interests of the defendant and of society. Conversely, the jury know that a verdict of not guilty will lead to the defendant’s exoneration and physical freedom. Only where the insanity defense is raised are the jury given a third alternative whose legal consequences they may not know or fully understand. Not to inform the jury of these possible consequences, when so requested by counsel or by the jury themselves, invites unnecessary speculation into their deliberations. Assuredly, the jurors will discuss this phase of a case in which a plea of insanity has been entered, and such discussion without the benefit of correct instruction may very well cause them to proceed on an erroneous basis.
On balance then, we believe it is best to entrust jurors with a knowledge of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.9 If jurors can be entrusted with *822responsibility for a defendant’s life and liberty in such cases as this, they are entitled to know 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 insanity — a verdict which necessarily requires the chilling determination that the defendant is an insane killer not legally responsible for his acts.
The instant case represents a classic example of the injustice which may occur when such information is withheld from the jury. The jury could have had no doubt that the defendant killed Miss Achorn. The jury also heard overwhelmingly persuasive evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the killing and that, for a long time into the future, he will remain a menace to himself and to society. Foremost in their minds must have been a concern for the safety of the community.
In the absence of an instruction from the trial judge as to the effect of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the jurors sought to render justice both to the defendant and to society, but theirs was not a true verdict. It is no answer that the defendant’s counsel, with the judge’s permission, briefly alluded to the existence of our commitment laws by saying that such a verdict “doesn’t mean that Harry walks out of this courtroom a free man.” Juries are repeatedly told both by trial judges and counsel that they are to take the law from the judge’s charge and not from counsel’s arguments.10
Implicit in the jury’s guilty verdict was a determination that the Commonwealth had proved the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. On the record before us, we have found no rational justification or basis for such a finding, except the jury’s understandable concern for the need to confine an insane and still dangerous killer for the protection of society. The jury, lacking knowledge of the *823commitment necessarily flowing from a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, applied their own standards of justice in arriving at a verdict designed to ensure the confinement of the defendant for his own safety and that of the community. The evidence heard by them and the law given to them clearly played little part in their final verdict despite the length of their deliberations and the judge’s delivery of the Tuey11 charge. We believe that, had the judge given the instruction requested, the jury might not have arrived at a guilty verdict. Accordingly, when the defendant is retried, should he request an instruction explaining the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, we hold that such instruction may properly be given.12

Judgment reversed.

Verdict set aside.

 The text of the requested instruction is as follows: “In the event that the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the district attorney or other appropriate authority may petition this Court under our statutes for his commitment to a facility for the care and treatment of mentally ill persons, or *812commitment to Bridgewater State Hospital for care and treatment. If upon such petition the Court finds that the defendant is mentally ill at the present time, and that his discharge would create a likelihood of serious harm to himself or others, then the defendant would be committed to a facility, or to strict custody in Bridgewater State Hospital in appropriate cases. The order of commitment is thereafter periodically reviewed by the courts of the Commonwealth.”

 We need not reexamine the issue whether the presumption of sanity, or more accurately the probability that a particular defendant is sane because of the fact that most men are sane, Commonwealth v. Clark, 292 Mass. 409 (1935); Commonwealth v. Cox, 327 Mass. 609 (1951), can be sufficient in and of itself to carry the prosecution’s burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonbale doubt where the defendant introduces overwhelming evidence of lack of criminal responsibility. Although there are decisions of this court which allow the “presumption” alone to carry the prosecution’s burden, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 357 Mass. 168 (1970), the continued vitality of this line of precedent may be questionable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), which raises the reasonable doubt standard to constitutional stature. While these cases do recognize that the Commonwealth must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, Commonwealth v. Smith, supra, there is no discussion as to what quantum of evidence is necessary to satisfy that burden. Considering the constitutional dimension added by the Winship case, and the recent tendency to scrutinize carefully presumptions in the criminal law because of the danger of shifting the burden to the defendant (see Leary v. United States, 395 U. S. 6 [1969]; Turner v. United States, 396 U. S. 398 [1970]; Barnes v. United States, 412 U. S. 837 [1973]; see also Holland and Chamberlin, Statutory Criminal Presumptions: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? 7 Valparaiso U. L. Rev. 147 [1973]), it may be questionable whether the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard and the “presumption of sanity” can logically coexist in a case where there has been extensive evidence of insanity with no medical evidence to the contrary. However, we leave the resolution of this question to another day.

 The testimony of Dr. Epstein, over the defendant’s objection, was as follows: “The prognosis, as I have stated in writing, is extremely poor, and the likelihood of further trouble, not only within himself but with society is extremely great. And, moreover, unless he is treated in a maximum security hospital he would continue to he a menace, as he has been in the past. In other words, this is prognostically not only a severe mental disorder but dangerous mental disorder. And, therefore, I predict that this [man] will not get well so readily as many of our other patients do, because of the nature of this diagnosis which began insidiously in our passive-aggressive personality fashion, which is only the beginning of paranoid schizophrenia, and one never really knows where one ends and the other begins, because it is really all one process.”

 For a complete listing of those jurisdictions supporting this view, and those who reject it, see 11 A. L. R. 3d 737 (1967).

Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968).

 Note recent changes in the Massachusetts drunken driving statute, G. L. c. 90, § 24, as amended by St. 1974, c. 647, § 1, which added § 24D, giving the court discretion to order early reinstatement of a license where the defendant participates in an alcohol education and/or treatment program.

 Jury acquittals motivated by a desire to avoid capital punishment under mandatory sentencing schemes provided a major impetus for the replacement of those schemes with overtly discretionary ones during the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, in England and in the United States. Kalven & Zeisel, The American Jury (1966). See Mackey, The Inutility of Mandatory Capital Punishment: An Historical Note, 54 B.U.L. Rev. 32 (1974).
In the United States we have seen that “[wjhere unpopular laws, such as gambling, liquor, or game laws are enforced, jury acquittals in the face of *820convincing evidence for conviction demonstrate jury distaste for these laws and result in their uneven application. When this occurs, a jury sits not only as a trier of fact, but as a purveyor of community values.” Comment, 54 B. U. L. Rev. 158, 175-176(1974).

 See Kalven & Zeisel, op. cit., at 276-280.

 This result is in accord with that reached by the District of Columbia court in Lyles v. United States, 254 F. 2d 725 (D. C. Cir. 1957), cert. den. 356 U. S. 961 (1958), cert. den. 362 U. S. 943 (I960), cert. den. 368 U. S. 992 (1962), which required that such an instruction be given unless objected to by the defendant. Similarly, although in the minority, Michigan (People v. Cole, 382 Mich. 695 [1969]), Alaska (Schade v. State, 512 P. 2d 907 [1973]), and Nevada (Kuk v. State, 80 Nev. 291 [1964]) all either allow or require such instruction, and Indiana (Dipert v. State, 259 Ind. 260 [1972]) and Wisconsin (State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412 [1966]) allow it in certain circumstances. Although a majority of the States which have dealt with this issue have refused to allow such an instruction, we find the logic and reasoning of the Lyles case and its progeny more persuasive, especially as applied to the circumstances of the instant case.

 This very issue was considered by the District of Columbia court in Catlin v. United States, 251 F. 2d 368 (D. C. Cir. 1957), where it stated, “[T]he better practice is for the trial judge, rather than for counsel, to give the explanation to the jury.” Id. at 369. See also Taylor v. United States, 222 F. 2d 398 (D. C. Cir. 1955). Cf. Goldsteins. Gontarz, 364Mass. 800, 810-811 (1974).

 Commonwealth v. Tuey, 8 Cush 1 (1851). See Commonwealth v. Rodriquez, 364 Mass. 87, 98-103 (1973).

 We hold that in all trials and retrials after this date where the defense of insanity is fairly raised, the defendant, on his timely request, is entitled to an instruction regarding the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Such an instruction shall also be given on the request of the jury, if the defendant does not object thereto. We emphasize that our holding is not to be extended beyond advising the jury of the consequences of that verdict. We do not depart from the long-standing general rule that neither sentencing nor parole may appropriately be considered by the jury in reaching their verdict. See Commonwealth v. McNeil, 328 Mass. 436 (1952); Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 356 Mass. 632 (1970).