Commonwealth v. Nancy Adkinson (October 5th, 2011)
Docket No. 10-P-432
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Facts: The defendant’s husband continually beat and threatened the defendant; there was an on-going cycle of abuse and control. The two were both accused of abuse and rape of their four boys. The defendant claimed that her husband threatened to hurt her if she didn’t participate in the abuse. The husband also administered cocaine to the kids and the defendant. The children were taken away, and afterward the abuse continued, including an incident when the husband put a knife to the defendant’s throat and threatened to kill her if she told anyone what had happened to the children. She escaped but after being visited by her husband at a mental health center she withdrew her allegations of her husband and returned home. The two were later arrested for the abuse of their children.
The husband pressured the defendant to take back a statement made to the Lowell police about the abuse of her husband, and forced her to be a co-defendant with him. During the defendant’s own case, the husband hired a different attorney than the one the defendant already held, and told the defendant that that attorney would represent them in their own case. Any time the defense attorney suggested that a unified defense was not beneficial, the husband violently disagreed, and also strongly objected to any pleas the defense counsel was considering. The husband also made a rule that no defense attorney could meet separately with each defendant; the two of them and any defense attorney had to all be present at every meeting. During the trial, the judge himself expressed concern about whether the defendants had considered severance. Even at sentencing, the husband decided that the defendant’s counsel would not speak, and the two defendants would be represented by the husband’s counsel. The defendant’s history of abuse was not presented and thus she was sentence to 35 to 40 years.
The defendant presented three expert testimonies in support of her motion of a new trial. The judge found that the testimony of Dr. Joss was not credible and not reliable but did not give much of an explanation. A social worker testified that the relationship was controlling and abusive. A psychologist testified that the defendant was experiencing a severe mental disorder and the evidence was overwhelming in support of a diagnosis of Battered Women’s Syndrome. But the judge found that these testimonies did not address the issue of competency and denied the motion for a new trial, and ruled that a competency hearing was not required because the competency issue was never raised at trial and because the defendant had answered all questions during the trial in an appropriate and responsive manner.
Issue #1: Were the defendant’s rights violated when the court did not conduct a competency hearing?
Yes. Whether a competency hearing was required depends on the defendant’s behavior during trial. Although in this case the court also has to consider the fact that the defendant was incapable of rationally assisting in her own defense because of the pattern of abuse and domination exercised upon her by her husband. There was clear evidence of physical and emotional abuse, and testimony that suggested some evidence of battered woman syndrome. The defendant, her son, and the two defense attorneys corroborated the expert testimony. There was also overwhelming evidence of the control the husband exercised over the defendant throughout the proceedings. Even if the defendant’s goal was to be reunited with her children when choosing the unified defense, as the judge suggests, it doesn’t change the fact that the defendant did not have the ability to consult rationally with her attorney and assist in her own defense.
Conclusion: The motion for a new trial should have been allowed.
Prepared by KP
