## Facts

- In a criminal case charging indecent assault and battery, Ruby McDonough was the alleged victim and a prospective witness for the Commonwealth.
- McDonough had suffered a stroke that left her with expressive aphasia affecting oral communication.
- The defendant moved for a competency evaluation, asserting McDonough could not testify reliably due to her communication impairment.
- A court-appointed expert evaluated McDonough, found her mental capacity intact, and reported that certain questioning methods improved her ability to communicate.
- After a competency hearing, the trial judge ruled McDonough not competent to testify, reasoning she could answer “yes/no” questions but could not provide a narrative and that her limitations would impair meaningful cross-examination.
- Neither McDonough nor the Commonwealth requested specific courtroom accommodations to assist her testimony, and the Commonwealth did not pursue interlocutory appellate review of the exclusion ruling.
- McDonough, acting on her own, petitioned for extraordinary relief, asserting that the competency proceeding and exclusion of her testimony violated disability-rights protections under federal and state law.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged victim/prospective witness who is not a party to the criminal case has standing to seek interlocutory review of an order finding her not competent to testify.
2. What appellate and trial-court procedures should govern when a witness seeks disability accommodation to testify and the judge denies the accommodation in a manner that prevents testimony.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court denied the petition, holding that McDonough lacked standing to obtain interlocutory review of the competency ruling in the criminal case.
- The court reasoned that the criminal prosecution is between the Commonwealth and the defendant, and a victim-witness has no cognizable appellate interest in evidentiary rulings where the Commonwealth elects not to seek review.
- Exercising supervisory authority, the court announced prospective procedures for (a) interlocutory appellate review when a judge denies a requested accommodation that prevents a witness from testifying and (b) trial-court handling of accommodation requests requiring judicial intervention.
- The court indicated that, going forward, interlocutory review in this setting is to be pursued by the party offering the witness, not by the witness alone.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a threshold requirement for extraordinary interlocutory relief; a nonparty alleged victim-witness generally lacks standing to appeal or seek interlocutory review of a trial court’s competency/exclusion ruling in a criminal case.
- Decisions about prosecution strategy and seeking appellate review of adverse evidentiary rulings rest with the Commonwealth as a party, not with the victim-witness.
- State courts have affirmative obligations under federal and state disability-rights law to provide reasonable accommodations that permit individuals with disabilities meaningful access to court processes, including the ability to give evidence.
- When accommodation is requested to enable testimony, trial courts should assess whether communication limits can be addressed through reasonable modifications (including structured questioning methods and other aids) rather than treating the inability to provide a conventional narrative as dispositive.
- The reasonableness of a requested accommodation must be considered alongside a criminal defendant’s confrontation right, including whether the accommodation still permits meaningful cross-examination.

## Conclusion

The court held that an alleged victim-witness lacked standing to obtain interlocutory review of a competency ruling excluding her testimony, but used its supervisory authority to establish prospective guidance for trial courts and a party-driven path for interlocutory review when disability accommodations for witnesses are denied in a way that prevents testimony.


In re McDonough, 930 N.E.2d 1279 (Mass. 2010)