{"id":2972,"date":"2022-08-15T23:15:27","date_gmt":"2022-08-16T04:15:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2972"},"modified":"2022-08-15T23:15:27","modified_gmt":"2022-08-16T04:15:27","slug":"commonwealth-v-corbett-mass-app-ct-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/08\/15\/commonwealth-v-corbett-mass-app-ct-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Commonwealth v. Corbett (Mass. App. Ct. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Commonwealth v. Corbett, No. 21-P-646 (Mass. App. Ct. 2022)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> The defendant was convicted of a crime in 2010 and was subsequently ordered to register as a level three offender on the Commonwealth\u2019s sex offense registry. Defendant complied with his registration requirements \u201cat least some of the time\u201d over the years that followed. But in 2017, defendant missed a registration date and was charged with failing to register.<\/p>\n

In preparing his defense, the defendant filed a motion in limine to admit expert testimony on defendant\u2019s mental state. Defendant\u2019s expert report opined that defendant struggled with significant mental health disorders that adversely impacted his daily functioning. The Commonwealth moved to exclude on relevance grounds. The trial court judge ultimately granted the Commonwealth\u2019s motion to exclude the testimony of defendant\u2019s expert, reasoning that the expert’s “conclusions … would not negate defendant’s knowledge of his obligation to register, support a defense of impossibility, or establish a defense of lack of criminal responsibility.”<\/p>\n

At the subsequent trial, the jury found defendant guilty. This appeal followed.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> The Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the judgment of the lower court and set aside the verdict. In so ruling, the Court held that a failing to register \u201cknowingly\u201d goes beyond actual notice. \u201cRather, to \u2018knowingly\u2019 fail to act requires\u00a0that the defendant have the ability to perceive \u2014 to remember \u2014 that he has an obligation to act as of the time of the crime.\u201d The Court further concluded that defendant\u2019s expert described sufficiently serious mental disorders that it could not be categorically excluded as irrelevant and that the lower court\u2019s error was not harmless, as it went to the defendant\u2019s principal defense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n