McHoul v. Commonwealth

2 Citing cases

  1. In re McHoul

    445 Mass. 143 (Mass. 2005)   Cited 63 times
    Holding such hearsay admissible when it is contained in a QE's report

    See Commonwealth v. McHoul, 372 Mass. 11 (1977). See also McHoul v. Commonwealth, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 878 (1980). On October 2, 2000, he filed a petition for examination and discharge.

  2. Page v. Commonwealth

    13 Mass. App. Ct. 384 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)   Cited 8 times
    In Page, the hearing judge gave no indication that the petitioner was anything but forthcoming in his examinations; yet the Commonwealth's experts were unable to muster any evidence that the petitioner was still an SDP.

    The statutory definition of an SDP which is set out in G.L.c. 123A, § 1 (as appearing in St. 1958, c. 646, § 1), does not vary depending on whether a court is considering an original commitment under § 5 or § 6 of that chapter or the possibility of a release under § 9. See McHoul v. Commonwealth, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 878 (1980). In either type of proceeding the Commonwealth has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question is (present tense) one who suffers from a "general lack of power to control his sexual impulses . . . and who as a result is likely to attack or otherwise inflict injury on the objects of his uncontrolled or uncontrollable desires" (§ 1, emphasis supplied).