# Commonwealth v. Conaghan

> Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · December 22, 2000 · 433 Mass. 105

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6452145

## Case

- **Full name:** Commonwealth v. Deborah Conaghan
- **Court:** Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- **Decided:** December 22, 2000
- **Citations:** 433 Mass. 105; 740 N.E.2d 956; 2000 Mass. LEXIS 767
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spina
- **Judges:** Abrams, Sosman, Spina
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6452145

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding battered woman syndrome evidence relevant for purposes of competency evaluation

## Opinion text

Spina, J.
(concurring, with whom Abrams, J., joins). I would add that the record also reveals that, nine days after Conaghan pleaded guilty, she filed a motion to revise and revoke her sentence. See Mass. R. Crim. R 29 (a), 378 Mass. 899 (1979). That motion has not been heard. Conaghan’s submissions on the motion for a new trial raise a serious question as to the accuracy of the facts on which the sentence was imposed. Conaghan may also move for a hearing on the motion to revise and revoke.
The question of the reasonableness of Conaghan’s delay in seeking a hearing on the motion is a matter for a trial judge. See Commonwealth v. Barclay, 424 Mass. 377, 380 (1997). In Barclay , we said that factors beyond the defendant’s control are relevant considerations in determining the reasonableness of the defendant’s delay between the filing of the motion to revise and revoke and the hearing on the motion. See id. at 380-381 . Additionally, in Barclay , the court stated that the delay must be *112 considered in light of the circumstances and relevant facts. See id.
If Conaghan seeks a hearing on the motion to revise and revoke, I would hold that a trial judge, see ante at 107 n.4, may use the new trial submissions and may order, in the judge’s discretion, a psychiatric examination to aid in sentencing, pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 15 (e).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6452145. Public record. Not legal advice.