## Facts

- During rush hour on January 20, 2011, the complainant boarded a crowded MBTA Green Line train and stood near the middle “accordion” area of the car.
- Jacob E. Shin boarded at Copley and stood extremely close to her, brushing her arm.
- Before the next stop, Shin touched the complainant high on her upper thigh, within roughly two inches of her genital area.
- The complainant pushed Shin away and told him to watch his hands; she exited at Hynes Convention Center to get out of the enclosed car, and Shin also exited.
- Transit police used surveillance video and fare-gate data tied to Shin’s transit pass to identify him; officers later recovered his “Charlie card” and gave Miranda warnings at his home.
- The defense presented evidence that Shin had schizophrenia and a personality disorder, a long hospitalization history, and a paraphilic disorder (frotteurism); he was not taking prescribed antipsychotic medication at the time.
- A forensic psychologist opined that, due to mental disease or defect, Shin lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to law at the time of the incident.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal standard for criminal responsibility by focusing on Shin’s knowing failure to take prescribed medication rather than his capacity at the time of the offense.
2. Whether, under the correct standard and burden of proof, the evidence was sufficient to establish Shin’s criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed Shin’s conviction for indecent assault and battery on a person aged fourteen or older.
- The court held the trial judge used an incorrect analysis by treating Shin’s medication noncompliance and his awareness of relapse risk as dispositive of criminal responsibility.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the proper criminal responsibility framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Massachusetts McHoul test, a defendant is not criminally responsible if, due to mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either (a) to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or (b) to conform his conduct to the law at the time of the offense.
- Once the defendant introduces some evidence of lack of criminal responsibility, the Commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A defendant’s knowing and voluntary refusal to take prescribed psychiatric medication may be relevant evidence, but it does not, by itself, establish criminal responsibility; the factfinder must determine the defendant’s actual capacities at the moment of the criminal act.
- Criminal responsibility analysis cannot be replaced by a moral or fault-based assessment of antecedent treatment choices.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Court reversed because the trial judge’s reasoning improperly treated medication refusal as a substitute for the required McHoul inquiry into Shin’s mental capacity at the time of the offense, thereby undermining the Commonwealth’s burden to prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.


Commonwealth v. Shin, 16 N.E.3d 1122 (Mass. App. Ct. 2014)