Court Opinion

ID: 9703656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:03:35.3405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:12.387114
License: Public Domain

*475Hennessey, C.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the result reached by the court,1 but I disagree with the court’s reasoning. This court has several times disclaimed any intention of adopting in criminal cases the principle of partial responsibility or diminished capacity. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 376 Mass. 765, 771-772 (1978); Commonwealth v. McGuirk, 376 Mass. 338, 345-346 (1978); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 374 Mass. 453, 461-465 (1978). Nevertheless, the reasoning of the court in this case applies that principle in practical effect. It does so by stating that murder in the second degree by reason of malice aforethought is a crime of specific intent. Then the court concludes that the jury should have been instructed that they should consider the evidence of the defendant’s mental abnormality2 on the issue whether the defendant was capable of entertaining the requisite intent. This is a new concept in the Massachusetts law of murder in the second degree and malice aforethought. Perhaps it is more important that I must conclude, based upon the reasoning of several of this court’s recent decisions (discussed below), that a defendant’s voluntary intoxication by use of illegal drugs or alcohol may now excuse him from conviction of murder in the second degree.
My concerns here do not implicate the court’s many decisions relating to insanity, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Kostka, 370 Mass. 516, 539, 540 (1976) (Hennessey, C.J., dissenting in part), which are based on the sound premise that we should not treat as criminals those persons who are not criminally responsible because of mental disease. Where insanity is in *476issue in a case, a dual test is applied: a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either (1) to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or (2) to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Commonwealth v. McHoul, supra. My concern is that in recent decisions, and most especially in the instant case, the court has established the relevance of mental limitations of a defendant who lacks neither of the McHoul capacities. It is particularly disturbing that defendants may be excused as to certain crimes of violence by reason of their voluntary use of drugs or alcohol.
The court’s reasoning in this and several similar cases has been rooted in the concept of “specific intent.” For many decades the focus was confined to the issue whether the specific intent necessary for deliberate premeditation had been shown in a first degree murder prosecution. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Delle Chiaie, 323 Mass. 615, 617-618 (1949); Commonwealth v. Taylor, 263 Mass. 356, 362-363 (1928). More recently the reasoning of these cases has been applied where the crime charged was assault with intent to murder. Commonwealth v. Henson, 394 Mass. 584, 592-594 (1985).3
The court in this case correctly states that malice aforethought may be inferred from proof (1) that the defendant without justification or excuse intended to kill the victim, (2) that the defendant intended to do the victim grievous bodily harm, or (3) that in the circumstances known to the defendant a reasonably prudent person would have known that according to common experience there was a plain and strong likelihood that death or grievous harm would follow a contemplated act.
*477The court, as I read the opinion, equates the “intent to kill or to do the victim grievous bodily harm” part of this definition with the specific intent required in Delle Chiaie, supra (deliberate premeditation), and Henson, supra (assault with intent to murder).4 The line between crimes of specific intent and crimes of general intent is surely not a precise one, and reasonable judges and attorneys may differ in the task of categorizing. “ ‘[Sjpecific intent’ may not have clear meaning to all judges and all lawyers. I trust that it is clear that the language of the court here has no bearing on the great majority of crimes of violence, such as assault by means of a dangerous weapon and armed robbery.” Henson, supra at 594 (Hennessey, C.J., concurring). I would have assumed, until now, that malice aforethought requires no such specific state of mind as to group it with Delle Chiaie (deliberate premeditation) ox Henson (assault with intent to murder).
It is clear that the mental abnormality considered by the court to be relevant in such cases includes intoxication by voluntary use of drugs or alcohol. Commonwealth v. Henson, supra at 592-594. See Commonwealth v. Perry, 385 Mass. 639, 648-649 (1982).
I offer that the court has now established that mental impairment short of insanity, including voluntary intoxication, may excuse a defendant charged with murder in the second degree. This is an important policy decision and, because the approach hinges upon the nature of the intent, I suggest that the issue whether the requisite intent is general or specific is itself a *478policy question. See Arenella, The Diminished Capacity and Diminished Responsibility Defenses: Two Children of a Doomed Marriage, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 827, 828 n.7 (1977).
I disagree with the court’s decision on that policy question and, as I did in Henson, supra at 594, I express concern that the court’s reasoning may implicate other crimes. For instance, the court in its opinion states that robbery requires specific intent. From this must we now infer that, as to a defendant charged with robbery, evidence of his intoxication by the voluntary use of illegal drugs or alcohol is relevant? Compare Commonwealth v. McGrath, 358 Mass. 314, 320 (1970).
Finally, I think the impetus to adopt a principle of diminished capacity or diminished responsibility may come from a realization that various defendants charged with identical crimes may, from case to case, greatly differ as to the extent or degree of blameworthiness or culpability. This is a proper consideration in the sentencing function, and the temptation of the court to adjust the substantive law, as it has done in Henson and the instant case, may be particularly strong when there is inflexibility in sentencing provisions, such as in murder convictions. The cure lies not with the court, but with the Legislature, where sentencing laws are established. In Gould, Henson, and the instant case, the court has decided policy matters which, in the public interest, should be left to the Legislature for debate and decision.

I concur in the result on grounds which the court did not have to reach by reason of the path it chose. I would grant a new trial on the basis that the judge in her charge impermissibly shifted to the defendant the burden of proof as to some issues. See Commonwealth v. Nieves, 394 Mass. 355 (1985). I would reach this result even though the standard of review (the defendant not having objected to these aspects of the charge) is “substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.” I would conclude, from a reading of the entire charge, that there was such a substantial risk.

 This evidence fell short of supporting a conclusion of insanity under Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967). The defendant makes no argument that he was entitled to an instruction to the jury that they could decide he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease within the meaning of McHoul.

In Commonwealth v. Gould, 380 Mass. 672 (1980), this court applied the principle of diminished responsibility or diminished capacity to the issue whether a murder was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, but the court there did not rely upon “specific intent” reasoning. “Whether it is desirable to introduce any version of diminished capacity as a mitigating factor to this crime as now defined by the statute is a question of legislative policy which I believe we should leave to the Legislature.” Id. at 693 (Quirico, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom Hennessey, C.J., joined).

 As I read the court’s opinion, specific intent does not relate to the third part of the definition, presumably because the legal test there is an objective one. However, the court reasons, the judge’s charge was in error because there is no way of knowing whether the jury reached their verdict premised on the first or second parts of the definition (the subjective aspects) or on the third part (the objective aspect), or on all three premises. The difficulty with the court’s reasoning, as I see it, is that the latter, objective part of the definition is necessarily established by proof of the former, subjective parts, of the definition. This is a sound reason for concluding that there was no error in the judge’s refusal to charge as to the defendant’s mental limitations. This aside, I emphasize that my principal concern here, as in Henson, is for the policy decisions inherent in the results reached by the court.