Com v. Peterson
| Decision Date | 31 March 1965 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Leroy PETERSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Joseph A. Melley, Asst. Dist. Atty. (Thomas J. Mundy, Jr., Brighton, with him), for the Commonwealth.
Louis M. Nordlinger, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, KIRK, SPIEGEL and REARDON, JJ.
On August 7, 1962, the grand jury for Suffolk County returned two indictments, in each of which the defendant was charged with an assault with a dangerous weapon on a police officer. The defendant pleaded guilty to these indictments on October 11, 1962, and was sentenced to two concurrent indeterminate terms at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Concord (Concord).
On May 6, 1963, while the defendant was serving these sentences, the superintendent of Concord filed with the appropriate clerk of the Superior Court a motion and report. The motion, which was filed under G.L. c. 123A, § 6, sought a commitement of the defendant to the treatment center, established in § 2, for examination and diagnosis for a period not exceeding sixty days. With his motion, the superintendent filed a report of the prison psychiatrist dated March 5, 1963, in which the psychiatrist stated that it was his opinion that the defendant might be a sexually dangerous person. These papers were presented to a judge of the Superior Court who ordered the defendant committed forthwith to the treatment center at Bridgewater for sixty days for examination and diagnosis. Thereafter, two psychiatrists regularly assigned to such commitments filed with the court a paper entitled, 'Report of Psychiatrists to the Court (G.L. c. 123A, § 6).' On July 29, 1963, the district attorney for Suffolk County filed a petition for commitment of the defendant as a sexually dangerous person.
Thereafter a hearing was held before a judge of the Superior Court to determine whether the defendant was to be adjudged a sexually dangerous person. At this hearing, in which the defendant was represented by counsel, the report of the psychiatrists was admitted in evidence. In addition there was testimony of several witnesses called by the district attorney. The judge found that the defendant was a sexually dangerous person, and ordered him committed to the treatment center at Bridgewater for an indeterminate period of from one day to life. G.L. c. 123A, § 6. The defendant excepted to the denial of his motion to dismiss and to the refusal of certain requests for rulings.
1. The defendant's motion to dismiss was rightly denied. He contends that since he was not serving sentences for offences of a sexual nature, had no record of conviction for sexual offences, and there was no evidence of any sexual misbehavior while in prison, he could not be committed as a sexually dangerous person under c. 123A. To hold otherwise, it is argued, would result in an unlawful and unconstitutional deprivation of the defendant's liberty. We disagree.
The defendant was committed under § 6 of c. 123 A, which provides that a commitment proceeding may be commenced '[i]f a prisoner under sentence in any * * * prison * * * appears to the * * * superintendent * * * to be a sexually dangerous person and in need of the care and treatment provided at the center' (emphasis supplied). Nowhere in that section is there any requirement that the prisoner must have been previously convicted of a sex offence or have been guilty of sexual misbehavior in prison. Section 6, thus, is quite different from §§ 4 and 5 under which it is expressly provided that that commitment procedure can be initiated only after a defendant has been found guilty of one of the sexual offences there enumerated.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, it is not necessary to read such requirements into this section in order to accord the defendant due process of law. The procedure established by § 6 is as follows. After the superintendent is satisfied that a prisoner is sexually dangerous and in need of treatment and care, he must notify the Commissioner of Mental Health, who shall thereupon cause the prisoner to be examined by a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist shall report the results of his examination in writing to the superintendent. If the report indicates that the prisoner may be a sexually dangerous person the superintendent shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Barboza
...mandated by the statute. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. McHoul, 372 Mass. 11, 14-16, 360 N.E.2d 316 (1977); Commonwealth v. Peterson, 348 Mass. 702, 205 N.E.2d 719, cert. denied, 384 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 1347, 16 L.Ed.2d 361 (1965). The respondent herein does not contend that a jury trial is stat......
-
Petition of Peterson
...§ 6. He is currently confined there. The petitioner brought the case here on exceptions and these were overruled. Commonwealth v. Peterson, 348 Mass. 702, 205 N.E.2d 719, cert. den. 384 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 1347, 16 L.Ed.2d Thereafter, the petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the Unit......
-
Peterson v. Gaughan, 7176.
...ordered for commitment at Bridgewater. He appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court and this finding was affirmed. Commonwealth v. Peterson, 348 Mass. 702, 205 N.E.2d 719 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 1347, 16 L.Ed.2d 361 (1966). He next sought habeas corpus in the federal distr......
-
Com. v. Gomes
...evidence, the expert may give his own conclusions in the terms of the test--whether the fact finder is a judge (Commonwealth v. Peterson, 348 Mass. 702, 705, 205 N.E.2d 719, cert.den. 384 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 1347, 16 L.Ed.2d 361 (case under c. 123A, § 6)), or a jury. Commonwealth v. Chapin, ......