Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog
If you or a family member is facing assault and battery on a police officer or a similar charge in Boston, and mental illness was part of what happened that day, a brand-new Massachusetts Appeals Court decision matters to your case. On May 12, 2026, the Appeals Court reversed convictions out of the Boston Municipal Court because the Commonwealth failed to prove the accused was criminally responsible at the time of the offense. The decision is Commonwealth v. Brunette-Silveira, and it tightens what prosecutors in Suffolk County must actually put on the record before a fact finder can reject an insanity defense.
Here is what that means in practical terms. Once a Boston criminal defense attorney raises criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth has to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt with real evidence, not assumption. Attorney Patrick J. Murphy has handled these cases in BMC and across Suffolk County for more than 27 years, and the new ruling gives the defense meaningful additional leverage.
What the Court Actually Held
The accused was charged with four counts of assault and battery on a police officer under M.G.L. c. 265, § 13D and one count of threatening to commit a crime under M.G.L. c. 275, § 2. The conduct happened at and after the Edward W. Brooke Court House. A defense forensic psychologist testified that the accused was in a manic episode tied to a chronic, major mental illness and lacked the substantial capacity to control his conduct.
The Appeals Court reversed because the Commonwealth’s evidence consisted almost entirely of the criminal acts themselves. There was no testimony about what the accused did before the encounter, no evidence about the booking, no rational planning, no concealment, no flight, no explanation given afterward. The court called the proof “gossamer” and ordered judgments of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility entered.
How the Defense Works in Practice
Under Commonwealth v. Lawson, 475 Mass. 806 (2016), once the defense produces enough evidence to put criminal responsibility in doubt, the Commonwealth must prove either no mental disease or defect, or that any such condition did not strip the accused of substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or conform conduct to law. The Appeals Court has now reinforced that prosecutors cannot meet that burden by pointing only to the charged acts and asking the judge to fill the rest with inference.
For Boston cases in the BMC, Roxbury, Dorchester, and other Suffolk County district courts, that means a Boston criminal defense attorney should be looking hard at gaps in the Commonwealth’s proof. Did officers testify to behavior before the alleged offense? Is there any evidence of planning, motive, or post-arrest cooperation suggesting awareness? Was the accused’s medical or psychiatric history obtained early enough to support a forensic evaluation? Each of those questions is now a pressure point.
The other piece is procedural. The Commonwealth in Brunette-Silveira waived its opening, waived cross of the defense expert, and waived argument on the required-finding motion. The Appeals Court did not save that record. Defense counsel who push hard on required-finding motions in BMC bench trials, with a developed expert presentation, may find more traction after this ruling.
What Is at Stake in a Boston Assault and Battery on a Police Officer Case
A conviction for assault and battery on a police officer under c. 265, § 13D carries a state prison sentence of up to two and a half years in a house of correction or up to ten years in state prison, plus fines, probation conditions, and a permanent CORI entry that affects employment, housing, and immigration status. A finding of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility is not an acquittal in the ordinary sense. Under G.L. c. 123, § 16, it triggers a separate process for evaluation and potential civil commitment.
That is why these cases need to be handled by an attorney who understands both the criminal procedure side and the c. 123 mental health side. Decisions made at arraignment, at the dangerousness hearing, and before any required-finding motion can shape the rest of the case.
Contact a Boston Criminal Defense Lawyer
A criminal charge where mental illness was part of what happened is a case where the criminal procedure side and the c. 123 mental health side have to be handled together. Decisions made at arraignment, at any dangerousness hearing, and before a required-finding motion can shape the rest of the case, and a developed forensic record matters long before trial. Contact the Law Office of Patrick J. Murphy at (617) 367-0450 for a free consultation, available 24/7 and with services for Spanish-speaking clients. Attorney Murphy has defended criminal cases in Massachusetts courts since 1994 and has argued matters that produced published decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court.