Commonwealth v. Accime
476 Mass. 469, 68 N.E.3d 1153 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a conviction of disorderly conduct under G. L. c. 272, § 53, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, and the determination of what constitutes a 'public' disturbance is a highly context and setting-specific inquiry.
Facts:
- In the afternoon of June 5, 2011, Richie Accime was involuntarily brought by ambulance and against his will to the emergency department of a hospital in Boston.
- Accime was involuntarily detained in a small room in the psychiatric area of the hospital's emergency department.
- When told he would likely be held in the hospital for two or three days, Accime began to shout, stating he did not want medication and wanted to leave, and threatening officers if they touched him or used pepper spray.
- Hospital security officers, some armed with batons, handcuffs, and pepper spray, arrived and attempted to persuade Accime to take medication and comply.
- Accime took off his shirt, paced with clenched fists, hitting the open palm of one hand with the clenched fist of the other, and adopted a 'fighting' stance.
- As a precautionary measure, officers directed anyone in the hallway to an alternate route 'just in case something happened if [the confrontation] spilled out' of the room, though there was no evidence the disturbance extended beyond the room.
- After officers threatened the use of pepper spray and Accime put his hands out 'like he wanted to fight,' at least three, and as many as six, officers directed pepper spray at Accime's head and face.
- Accime retreated into a corner of the room and subsequently agreed to sit on a stretcher, where he was handcuffed before the spray was rinsed off him.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 19, 2011, a criminal complaint was issued from the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department, charging Richie Accime with threatening to commit a crime, disorderly conduct, and assault.
- Accime was tried before a jury in June 2014, in the Boston Municipal Court Department (trial court).
- Accime moved for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth's case and again at the close of his case, both of which the trial judge denied.
- The jury acquitted Accime of assault, convicted him of disorderly conduct, and failed to agree on a verdict for the charge of threatening to commit a crime.
- Accime filed a timely notice of appeal from his disorderly conduct conviction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted his application for direct appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a patient's belligerent and threatening behavior, contained within a small room in a hospital's psychiatric emergency department, constitute disorderly conduct under G. L. c. 272, § 53, when there is no evidence of the patient's awareness of any broader public impact or intent to create a public disturbance?
Opinions:
Majority - Botsford, J.
No, Richie Accime's belligerent behavior in the psychiatric area of a hospital emergency department did not constitute disorderly conduct because the Commonwealth failed to provide sufficient evidence that he consciously disregarded a 'substantial and unjustifiable risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm' or that his actions created the type of 'public' disturbance targeted by G. L. c. 272, § 53. The court reiterated that disorderly conduct, as construed through the Model Penal Code definition, requires proof of conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of public nuisance. The evidence presented did not show Accime was aware that his conduct had any impact on anyone outside his immediate room, nor did it suggest he knew of the pedestrian rerouting, which was a prophylactic measure initiated by the security officers. Furthermore, the 'public' character of the disturbance was not met; the conduct was contained within a small room, witnessed primarily by staff, and any 'other' patients 'looking on' did not qualify as the kind of public disturbance envisioned by the statute, especially compared to prior cases like Commonwealth v. Sholley. The court emphasized the necessity of a 'setting-specific' inquiry, concluding that a patient's resistance in a psychiatric emergency department is the kind of disruption such a unit is designed to absorb, rather than a public nuisance. The court stated that criminalizing such behavior in treatment centers risks criminalizing mental illness itself, distinguishing Accime's actions from scenarios where a defendant physically attacked staff or caused substantial disruption to hospital operations, neither of which occurred here as he was acquitted of assault and no verdict was reached on threatening.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of disorderly conduct charges in specialized institutional settings, particularly for individuals experiencing mental health crises. It reinforces the high bar for proving the 'conscious disregard' and 'public' elements of the crime, requiring more than just reactive measures by staff. The ruling signals a judicial reluctance to criminalize behavior that is arguably a symptom of mental illness within treatment contexts, underscoring the importance of context in assessing the public impact of an individual's actions. It may influence how law enforcement and medical professionals interact with and manage patients in psychiatric emergencies, potentially encouraging de-escalation or therapeutic approaches over immediate criminal charges, while also clarifying the threshold for what constitutes a criminal public disturbance.
