Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Appeals Court Weighs Criminal-Responsibility Claim After Conflicting Trial Statements
Loading...
Summary
Appellant urged vacation of a conviction for lack of criminal responsibility, saying the prosecutor conceded the evidence supported mental‑illness findings; the Commonwealth said closing argument is not evidence and that sufficient record support exists for the judge’s verdict.
Boston — In 25P510, attorneys argued intensely over whether the trial record supports a finding that the defendant, Mr. Durand, was criminally responsible for an incident in July 2021.
Appellant counsel (Dolber) asked the court to vacate the conviction and "enter a finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility by reason of mental illness," arguing the prosecutor at trial had agreed the defense expert’s conclusions and that the trial judge provided no rationale for reaching a contrary verdict. Dolber told the panel the Commonwealth had "cherry‑picked" hospital records on appeal to undo the concession made below.
Assistant District Attorney Hallie White Speight countered that closing argument is not evidence and that the sufficiency-of-the-record question is what this panel must review: "closing arguments are not evidence," she said, urging the panel to examine whether a rational factfinder could have reached the verdict on the record.
Justices pressed both sides on precedent about deference to the trial judge’s credibility findings and on whether the Commonwealth’s words at trial amounted to a binding concession. The court also discussed cases the parties cited (including Garcia and related decisions) that address the judge’s duty to explain a verdict when parties concur on the evidence.
After further questioning about the medical records, statements in the trial transcript and the judge’s remarks at sentencing, the case was submitted for decision.
