Com. v. McGruder
| Decision Date | 01 April 1965 |
| Citation | 205 N.E.2d 726,348 Mass. 712 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. James C. McGRUDER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William C. Flanagan, Springfield, for defendant.
Matthew J. Ryan, Jr., Dist. Atty., for Commonwealth.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL, and REARDON, JJ.
In these proceedings brought under G.L. c. 123A, § 6, the defendant was found to be a sexually dangerous person and was committed to the treatment center at Bridgewater for an indeterminate period of from one day to life. The case comes here on the defendant's exceptions to certain rulings on evidence.
The rulings occurred in these circumstances. The finding that the defendant was a sexually dangerous person rested on the opinions of two psychiatrists, Dr. Newman Cohen and Dr. Daniel Weiss, called by the Commonwealth. Prior to the present commitment hearing both doctors had examined the defendant in accordance with the provisions of § 6. That section empowers the court, on a showing that a prisoner under sentence may be a sexually dangerous person, to order him committed to the treatment center established by § 2 'for examination and diagnosis for a period not exceeding sixty days.'
Dr. Cohen testified on direct examination that the defendant was a sexually dangerous person within the definition of c. 123A. When asked to give the basis for his opinion, he testified to a series of incidents in which the defendant was involved. It appeared that these incidents were based on a study of the records at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord which were made available to the staff at the treatment center. At this point counsel for the defendant objected on the ground that the doctor's testimony was based on hearsay. The judge stated that the witness could compete his testimony and when he had concluded the defendant could move 'to strike it out of it's not connected up.' After the direct examination of Dr. Cohen had been completed, the defendant moved that his opinion be struck 'because it was based upon hearsay evidence.' The motion was denied subject to the defendant's exception. 1
On cross-examination Dr. Cohen testified that the only person interviewed by him was the defendant; that all other information was obtained from records, and that he 'based his opinion upon information contained in these records.' The defendant renewed his motion to strike and it was denied subject to his exception.
Dr. Weiss, the other psychiatrist who had also examined the defendant at the treatment center, testified on direct examination that the defendant was § sexually dangerous person. He based his opinion on information (obtained from the records) that the defendant 'had been convicted on two occasions of sexual crimes involving violence in connection with young girls.' The defendant 'objected to Dr. Weiss' testimony on the same grounds as he objected to Dr. Cohen's testimony.' The objection was overruled, subject to the defendant's exception.
The defendant testified that he had 'a long record in New York and two of the offenses * * * [were] of a sexual nature.' He denied that he ever used a gun or that he had ever used threats or violence.
The evidence of the defendant's sexual misbehavior which formed the basis of the psychiatrists' opinions was obviously hearsay. A party cannot put in incompetent evidence under the guise of fortifying the opinion of his witness. Hunt v. City of Boston, 152 Mass. 168, 171, 25 N.E. 82; Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 195 Mass. 100, 108, 80 N.E. 799; Commonwealth v. Russ, 232 Mass. 58, 74, 122 N.E. 176; Newton Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy., 335 Mass. 189, 199, 138 N.E.2d 769. Compare National Bank of Commerce v. City of New Bedford, 175 Mass. 257, 261, 56 N.E. 288. Unless this evidence was made admissible under the statute it ought not to have been received. We are of opinion that it was admissible.
Section 6, under which the present commitment proceedings were brought, provides that when the court makes the sixty day commitment to the treatment center for examination and diagnosis (which is a condition precedent to a commitment under § 6) the commitment shall be 'under the provisions of section four in so far as may be applicable.' Under § 4, the examination and diagnosis must be supervised by not less than two psychiatrists who within the commitment period must file with the court a 'written report of such examination and diagnosis, and their recommendations for the dispositions.' Section 4 further provides that the court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews, In re
...accorded those prisoners subjected to c. 123A must be upgraded in specified respects. I. The Hearsay Issue. In Commonwealth v. McGruder, 348 Mass. 712, 205 N.E.2d 726 (1965), cert. den. 383 U.S. 972, 86 S.Ct. 1277, 16 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966), reh. den. 384 U.S. 947, 86 S.Ct. 1466, 16 L.Ed.2d 545......
-
In re McHoul
...from ordinary evidentiary rules," Andrews, petitioner, 368 Mass. 468, 473, 334 N.E.2d 15 (1975), quoting Commonwealth v. McGruder, 348 Mass. 712, 715, 205 N.E.2d 726 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 972, 86 S.Ct. 1277, 16 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966); but we have repeatedly applied the evidentiary rule......
-
Com. v. Nieves
...the attendance of witnesses, § 14(b); cross-examine adverse witnesses who testify at trial, § 13(d), see Commonwealth v. McGruder, 348 Mass. 712, 716, 205 N.E.2d 726 (1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 972, 86 S.Ct. 1277, 16 L.Ed.2d 312 (1966); Commonwealth v. Bradway, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 280, 289, ......
-
Opinion of the Justices To the Senate
...whether the bill, if enacted, would contravene the confrontation right of art. 12 and the Sixth Amendment. See Commonwealth v. McGruder, 348 Mass. 712, 716, 205 N.E.2d 726 (1965) (art. 12 right of confrontation not applicable to civil proceedings), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 972, 86 S.Ct. 1277,......