Criminal Law: Mentally Incompetent Criminal Defendants and the Substituted Judgment Doctrine: Commonwealth v. (versus) DelVerde, 398 Mass. (Massachusetts) 288, 496 N.E.2d 1357 (1986)

• NCJ Number: 115783
• Journal: Suffolk University Law Review Volume: 21 Issue: 1 Dated: (Spring 1987) Pages: 308-316
• Author(s): M Diana
• Date Published: 1987
• Length: 9 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.

Annotation

This article critiques the court's decision in Commonwealth v. DelVerde, in which the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts considered whether the guardian of a mentally incompetent criminal defendant may invoke the substituted judgment doctrine to enter a guilty plea on the incompetent's behalf.

Abstract

The civil law doctrine of substituted judgment vindicates rights of the mentally incompetent, which otherwise might go unprotected, by enabling a court to ascertain an incompetent's preferences and accordingly to make a decision on behalf of the incompetent. In Commonwealth v. DelVerde, the court held that an admission of guilt offered through substituted judgment cannot provide the factual proof of criminal intent required for conviction. A mentally incompetent criminal defendant, reasoned the court, may not plead guilty in exchange for an agreed-upon sentencing recommendation. The court's decision was correct, because the acceptance of the guilty plea of a mentally incompetent criminal defendant through a guardian pursuant to the doctrine of substituted judgment, if the accused was incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit the crime, would circumvent the State's obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 48 footnotes.