Appeals court reviews competency, due-process claim in Kurbatsky appeal

The Massachusetts Appeals Court on Feb. 11, 2025 heard argument in Commonwealth v. Kurbatsky about a claim that the defendant lacked competency at critical stages of her criminal case, including pretrial hearings and trial.

Defense counsel Amy Coddigan asked the panel to reverse the denial of a motion for new trial on due-process grounds, contending there was substantial evidence that the defendant was not competent at key stages. Coddigan emphasized post-conviction clinical reports from multiple clinicians that, she said, confirmed pervasive, disabling conspiracy beliefs that affected the defendant’s decisionmaking (including motions filings, witness choices, and other litigation choices) and argued those behaviors appear repeatedly in the pretrial and trial record.

Counsel argued the trial judge’s written findings “skated over” concerning pretrial behavior and that a contemporaneous court-clinic evaluation, while relevant, did not foreclose reexamination when additional signs of incompetence surfaced. Coddigan said the evidence met an “essentially equal” threshold that should have entitled the defendant to relief under the applicable standard for competency inquiries.

Assistant Attorney General Gabriel Thornton (joined by trial prosecutor Kevin Lowndes) defended the trial judge’s decision and urged the panel to defer to factual findings of a judge who presided over trial and observed the defendant’s in-court conduct. Thornton cited the court clinician’s contemporaneous evaluation that found competency and argued the defendant’s organized presentation at trial, ability to consult standby counsel, and targeted courtroom behavior supported the judge’s ruling. The Commonwealth stressed appellate deference to a trial judge who also ruled on the post-trial motion.

The panel questioned the parties about the distinction between pretrial and trial competency evaluations, whether the trial judge made adequate factual findings, and whether subsequent expert reports could overcome a contemporaneous clinic determination. The arguments focused on standards of proof and the proper deference to a judge who observed the defendant over time.

The case was submitted for decision after argument.

If the court finds the motion judge abused his discretion, the ruling would likely remand for further proceedings including contemporaneous competency assessment and possible new trial; if not, the convictions and the motion-denial will be affirmed.