Opinion
18-P-622
10-01-2019
COMMONWEALTH v. Alex DUVERGE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The defendant, Alex Duverge, appeals from his conviction, after a jury-waived trial in the District Court, for assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A (a ). Concluding that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had the capacity to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law, we affirm.
1. Standard of review. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, "we consider the evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Faherty, 93 Mass. App. Ct. 129, 133 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539, 547 (2017). "The inferences that support a conviction ‘need only be reasonable and possible; [they] need not be necessary or inescapable.’ " Commonwealth v. Waller, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295, 303 (2016), quoting Commonwealth v. Woods, 466 Mass. 707, 713 (2014).
2. Criminal responsibility. "[A] defendant is not criminally responsible for his actions if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or conform his behavior to the requirements of the law." Commonwealth v. Muller, 477 Mass. 415, 425 (2017). If the defendant asserts the defense of lack of criminal responsibility, "the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was criminally responsible." Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806, 811 (2016). The fact finder is permitted to "infer sanity from the ‘facts underlying the crime and evidence of [the defendant's] actions before and after the crime.’ " Commonwealth v. Rasmusen, 444 Mass. 657, 663 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Kappler, 416 Mass. 574, 579 (1993).
The defendant did not move for a required finding of not guilty on this issue at the close of the Commonwealth's case, as "a motion for a required finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility may be brought only at the close of all the evidence." Lawson, 475 Mass. at 816. The fact that the defendant did not formally move for a required finding of not guilty at the close of all evidence is immaterial to our review. See Commonwealth v. Kurko, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 719, 722-723 (2019).
--------
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found from the defendant's statements to a forensic psychiatrist that the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of his actions and possessed the capacity to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law. The psychiatrist opined that the defendant likely knew that his actions were wrong but could not conform his actions to the requirements of the law. Nonetheless, during the criminal responsibility interview, the psychiatrist asked whether the defendant would have struck the victim if the police were present. The defendant responded he "probably wouldn't, because that would be very stupid." The trier of fact was entitled to credit the defendant's statement and find that the defendant had the ability to control his actions. See Commonwealth v. Meola, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 303, 315 (2019).
Further, there was evidence that the victim had provoked the defendant, and the defendant explained that the victim "was just agitating [him], like, being a jerk." A reasonable fact finder could have inferred from these statements that the defendant acted out of anger rather than from a psychotic impulse. See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 475 Mass. 848, 857 (2016). Although the psychiatrist concluded that the defendant lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, the trier of fact did not need to accept the expert testimony. See Rasmusen, 444 Mass. at 663.
Judgment affirmed.