M.G.L. Chapter 123 Section 15(a)
[X]COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL
[] CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
centurion.
FORENSIC HEALTH SERVICES
DATE OF REPORT 1/30/2024
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:
DEFENDANT: Richard Stebbins
COURT: East Brookfield District
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Alex Bergo, Esq.
DATE OF BIRTH: 10/8/78
ORDERED BY JUDGE: David Despotopolous
DEFENSE CONTАСТ: (847) 372-8414
LEGAL:
DOCKET NO: 2169CR001285JT
CHARGES: Assault and Battery on Family/Household Member
SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS: It is alleged that on 10/4/21, Mr. Stebbins physically assaulted his then live-in girlfriend by
hitting her in the face with his elbow during an argument.
DEMOGRAPHICS:
LIVING SITUATION/TOWN OF RESIDENCE/HOMELESS: With his sister and nephew on 54 Hope Street in Springfield, MA.
SEX/GENDER: Male/Man
MARITAL STATUS: Divorced
RACE Specify: White
CHILDREN: Yes
ETHNICITY Specify: Not Hispanic or Latinol
HISTORY OF MILITARY SERVICE: Unknown
1
PROCEDURAL HX/REASON FOR REFERRAL (e.g., Referral Source; Specific Reason for Referral):
Attorney Bergo indicated he requested this evaluation, as Mr. Stebbins fired his two previous attorneys and
presents with non-linear, concrete thinking. He shared that Mr. Stebbins also appears to focus on grievances
he has with regard to his case and espouses "conspiracy thinking" about his case.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL:
Whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding
and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Commonwealth v.
Vailes (1971)
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY:
In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Courts, a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such
conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality
[wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law. Commonwealth v. McHoul
(1967)
SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
This evaluation was conducted: in person
Defense Attorney was present.
[X] Order of Examination dated 1/10/24
[X] Interview with the defendant on 1/29/24 for
approximately one hour
[] Application for Complaint
[X] Criminal Docket and Complaint for Docket #
2169CR001285JT
[X] Police report dated 10/4/21
[X] Court Activity Record Information (CARI)
[X] Consultation with Defense Attorney
[] Telephone Interview with
[] Review of records from
2
WARNING OF LIMITS OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
At the outset of my interview with the defendant, I informed the defendant that I am a forensic evaluator ordered by the
Court to gather information that the Court could use in determining the defendant's competency to stand trial. The
defendant was informed that as a result of this evaluation, the defendant could be hospitalized at a psychiatric facilityfor further evaluation. It was explained that any observations and the information the defendant provided would not be held confidential and could be included in the written report submitted to the Court and possibly in oral testimony. The defendant was made aware that the defendant did not have to participate in the evaluation, that the defendant could answer questions selectively, and that the defendant could stop the interview at any time. The defendant was advised that any information obtained in this evaluation could be used at trial if the defendant introduces the defendant's mental state as a defense at trial. Additionally, it was explained that I was required to submit a report to the Court on whether or not the defendant chose to participate in the evaluation. I also informed the defendant that I am mandated to report abuse or neglect of a child, disabled person, and/or elderly person, should I become aware of such information.The defendant was further informed that should I have concerns about the defendant posing a risk of harm to
themselves or others, I would also be required to take appropriate actions in response.
When asked to summarize the warning provided above, in my clinical opinion, Mr. Stebbins understood the
purpose of the evaluation is because "my competency is in question," and the evaluation is to assess "my
understanding of what's going on and the questions being asked of me." He understood that "no" the
evaluation is not confidential and "no" he does not have to participate in the interview.
BRIEF PERTINENT HISTORY (e.g., developmental; family/social history; trauma history, culture and identity;
education; employment):
[] Defendant declined to participate in the interview
Mr. Stebbins was born in Springfield. He has been married twice. Both of his marriages ended in divorce. He
has two adult children. He identified his sister (who he currently resides with) as his primary support person in
the community. Mr. Stebbins relayed that he is unemployed. He has been on SSDI since 2016 for a medical
condition (i.e., a skeletomuscular disorder). He endorsed a history of trauma. He stated he was physically
abused as a child within the family home. He also noted that when he attended Catholic school, he was locked
in a closet because of his ADHD (i.e., difficulty sitting still/paying attention) in that "I'd ask a lot of questions
and if it didn't make sense then I'd keep asking." Mr. Stebbins relayed that he completed some college. He was
in college to become a medical assistant at Springfield Tech. He did not finish college due to ongoing health
issues. He denied ever being placed in special education classes in school, but noted that it was difficult for him
to pay attention in class due to his ADHD diagnosis. When asked about history of behavioral difficulties in
school, he commented that he was "defiant" in school, and "I'd always talk. I wouldn't shut up," adding, "The
do as I say not as I do didn't work for me. I need explanations."
3
Medical (e.g., seizures, ADL's, current and past chronic and acute conditions):
Problems noted by Defendant: Hyperthyroidism and skeletomuscular disorder. Mr. Stebbins said he has had 15
orthopedic surgeries and had a disk replaced in his neck.
History of Head Injury- No If yes, describe:
Allergies- Unknown If yes, describe:
Ambulatory- Yes If no, describe:
Additional Information-
Psychiatric:
Diagnosis (identify source self-report,
providers or records)- Mr. Stebbins endorsed anxiety and depression occuring in the context
of uncontrolled hyperthyroidism
DMH Client- Never
History of self-harm/self-neglect- Yes If yes, please describe: Mr. Stebbins indicated he attempted
suicide in 2004/2005 via drinking a pint of vodka in 15 minutes and in
2006 via taking 100 extra strength Tylenol pills. He said he attempted
suicide in October 2015 via cutting his arm, in December 2015 via
attempting to overdose on his psychiatric medications, and in February
2016 via consuming rat poison. He commented that he has engaged in
self-injury in the past with the help of someone else and that he
engaged in this behavior so his insurance would authorize him to
participate in outpatient treatment. Mr. Stebbins relayed that his prior
suicide attempts/self-injurious behaviors occurred due to a
combination of stress and mental health symptoms (e.g., anxiety -
hearting pounding and inability to sleep) in the context of his thyroid
condition not being adequately managed at the time.
History of violence to others- Yes If yes, please describe: Mr. Stebbins has a history of being
charged with Assault and Battery, and the instant offense is an Assault
and Battery charge.
Inpatient/Outpatient Treatment- Mr. Stebbins said he was psychiatrically hospitalized multiple times in
the past, typically following a suicide attempt he had. He has been
hospitalized at Baystate Medical Center, Palmer Hospital, and
Westfield Hospital. Mr. Stebbins stated he has a provider through the Griswold Center. He
spoke to his provider in December 2023 and discussed his vitamin D
levels being low. His provider is not currently prescribing him any
psychiatric medications.
4
Psychiatrist/Medication Provider- Name Unknown Phone- Unknown
Treatment Provider/Therapist- None reported Phone -
Guardian- No
Current Medications- Psychiatric: None reported
Other: Hyperthyroid medication
Medication Adherence Yes
Additional Information Mr. Stebbins reported he used to be prescribed Zoloft for stress and
depression. He stopped taking this medication in November 2023
because it caused him to experience stomach issues. He was prescribed
Vyvanse in the past to manage his ADHD, but he stopped taking this
medication several years ago.
Substance Use (e.g., alcohol, opiates/heroin, crack/cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, etc.):
Name of Substance
Mr. Stebbins reported he has a medical
marijuana card.
He denied use of any other substances.
Frequency/Method/Amount
"Here and there"
Last Used
Unknown
Additional Information
Legal (e.g., include relevant charges/convictions, restraining orders/abuse prevention orders, and/or probation
status):
History of violent offenses- Yes
According to his CARI, Mr. Stebbins has past charges of A&B, Property Violation, Disorderly Conduct, Forgery
of Document, Uttering, and Forgery. He has four 209A Restraining Orders on his record, one of which is open
and taken out against him by the alleged victim in the instant offense. He has two closed 258E Harassment
Prevention Orders on his record.
5
CURRENT MENTAL STATUS (e.g., appearance, behavior, relatedness/eye contact/cooperative, vegetative
symptoms, sensorium and cognition, mood/affect, quality of communication, thought process, thought content,
perception, insight/judgment, suicidal ideation, plan, intent, and homicidal ideation plan, intent):
OBSERVATIONS:
APPEARANCE: [X] Clean [] Unkempt [] Disheveled [] Other:
EYE CONTACT: [X] Appropriate [] Intense [] Avoidant Other:
SPEECH: [X] Mostly Normal Tangential Pressured [] Impoverished Other: At times during the competency portion of the interview, Mr. Stebbins spoke over his attorney. It appeared as though this was largely due to his need to finish his thought and get his point across first before allowing his attorney to speak or answer another question.
MOTOR ACTIVITY: [X] Normal [] Restless [] Agitated [] Slowed [] Other:
AFFECT: [X] Full [] Constricted [] Flat [] Labile [] Other:
MOOD: [X] Euthymic [] Angry Anxious [] Depressed [] Irritable [] Euphoric [] Other:
Sleep Disturbance: ☐ Yes [X] No If yes, please describe:
Appetite Disturbance: ☐ Yes [X] No If Yes, please describe:
Energy: [] High [] Low [X] Average [] Other:
COGNITION:
ORIENTATION: [X] Time [X] Place [X] Person Situation
MEMORY: [X] Normal Limits [] Short-Term [] Long-Term [] Other:
ATTENTION: [X] Adequate [] Distracted [] Other:
THOUGHT PROCESS: [X] Normal limits [] Illogical [] Delusional [] Paranoid [] Ruminative [] Disorganized
PERCEPTION: [X] None [] Auditory Hallucinations [] Visual Hallucinations [] Other:
DELUSIONS: [X] None [] Grandiose [] Paranoid [] Religious Other:
BEHAVIOR DURING INTERVIEW: [X] Cooperative Guarded ☐ Withdrawn Hyperactive ☐ Oppositional ☐ Hostile ☐ Passive
Other: During the competency portion of the evaluation, Mr. Stebbins occasionally digressed off-topic. For instance, he
discussed a perceived past wrongdoing against him by police (in an incident unrelated to the instant offense) in which
he felt police officers helped a woman commit a crime against him. He relayed that a woman hit him while he was
crossing the street, and she had no car insurance and her registration was suspended. He said the woman's sister
worked in a courthouse, and the police did her "a favor" by not charging her with a crime. Mr. Stebbins also expressed
the belief that a prior criminal matter he had out of a different court was mishandled (e.g., that he was "coerced" into
taking this case to trial, and the district attorney on the case "tampered" with evidence). Mr. Stebbins was able to be
interrupted and redirected when he digressed off-topic.
Current Suicidal ideation, plan, and/or intent: No If yes, please describe:
Current Homicidal Ideation, plan and/or intent: No If yes, please describe:
6
DATA RELEVANT TO COMPETENCE TO STAND TRIAL:
DATA RELEVANT TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY:
Mr. Stebbins reported he is charged with "Assault and Battery." He said he is accused of "elbow[ing]" his "exgirlfriend in the face." He was aware of his plea options and the possible outcomes of a guilty finding for the
index charge. He had an understanding of the purpose of probation, some conditions related to probation,
and a potential consequence for violation of probation.
Mr. Stebbins was able to spontaneously and accurately identify major courtroom officials and their roles. He
demonstrated understanding of the differing allegiances in the courtroom as well as the adversarial nature of
the criminal justice system. He expressed a basic understanding of the purpose of a trial and knew the role of
a jury. He was aware of what can constitute evidence. He identified evidence/witnesses he could use in his
defense. While he expressed the belief that there are no evidence/witnesses against him, he acknowledged
that the alleged victim could possibly take the witness stand, and she is not on his side. He knew the role of a
witness. He stated he knew that if a witness testified on the stand then there would be a direct examination
and a cross examination. He appeared to possess a basic awareness that if a witness were to lie on the stand
then they could be charged with a criminal offense. He discussed information he believed the alleged victim
would testify to if she were to take the witness stand. (He did not specifically state that the alleged victim
would testify against him with regard to the alleged incident, but he evidenced an awareness that she is not
on his side, which suggests that he likely knows that she would not testify in his defense.) Mr. Stebbins
accurately defined a plea bargain. He was able to identify some of the pros/cons of taking a case to trial versus
taking a plea bargain (and vice versa) and why a defendant may wish to proceed with their case by way of
either a trial or a plea bargain.
Mr. Stebbins reported he does not feel he has been able to trust any of the attorneys who have represented
him in his case. He identified one reason for this has been due to the length of the time this case has gone on
for in court. He identified another reason for this has been due to what he perceives as a lack of follow
through on the behalf of his attorneys and meeting his expectation with regard to gathering relevant
evidence/witnesses in his case. During the interview, Mr. Stebbins expressed frustration that he has yet to
receive all of the evidence he requested in his case (despite his attempts at obtaining some of this information
from multiple different sources). He also expressed frustration about receiving different reports about the
existence of a potential piece of evidence he would like to use in his case and that the district attorney may be
withholding this piece of evidence. (Mr. Stebbins said he is unsure if this piece of evidence even exists in that
he was told it does not exist but was also apparently told that the first attorney to represent him was able to
get ahold of it and that the district attorney also potentially had it.) He relayed that he did not fire his previous
attorneys. He did not appear to have a clear sense about why his previous attorneys withdrew from his case
when asked about this. Mr. Stebbins expressed an openness to work with his current attorney as long as he
thoroughly explains himself and his reasoning for why he is (or isn't) doing something and keeps him
informed/shares with him any relevant case-related information he is able to gather in this case. He noted
that he can "argue a point" until he is "blue in the face," and he also commented that "I just don't agree with
anything" that someone says and that he was aware that this can "come off as argumentative."
7
Mr. Stebbins evidenced a rational understanding when given a hypothetical case scenario. He accurately
identified factors (e.g., evidence/witnesses) one might consider when choosing to take their case to trial or
accept a plea bargain. He demonstrated desire to be an active participant in his case and obtain a favorable
outcome.
CLINICAL OPINION:
Based on all available information, in my clinical opinion, there is no indication in Mr. Stebbins' presentation
today to suggest that he would not have the capacity to rationally understand his criminal case or the capacity to
comport himself in order to rationally assist his attorney in his defense. Mr. Stebbins understood the charge and
allegation against him and potential consequences if found guilty of the alleged offense. He was aware of his plea
options and the roles of various courtroom officials, and he was able to define probation, a trial, and the plea
bargaining process. He demonstrated the ability to engage in rational decision-making with respect to the reason
a defendant may proceed by way of trial or a plea bargain and weigh the pros/cons of each option. While Mr.
Stebbins reported he has not trusted any of the attorneys who have represented him thus far, he expressed
openness to working with his current attorney as long as the lines of communication are kept open between
them. Furthermore, Mr. Stebbins was able to rationally reason through a hypothetical case decision and did not
present with current symptoms of mental illness while discussing the hypothetical scenario. Mr. Stebbins appears
to present with some difficulty interpersonally and possesses somewhat rigid views about how to proceed in his
case, which may make it difficult for counsel to work with him. However, Mr. Stebbins' views with regard to the
instant offense did not necessarily appear rooted in a mental illness (e.g., paranoid/delusional thought disorder).
He appears to need information thoroughly explained to him (with some information re-explained/clarified as
needed) and time to express himself during discussions with his attorney so that he feels listened to and heard.
Thus, as already stated above, in my clinical opinion, Mr. Stebbins presents as capable of understanding his
criminal case and working with his attorney, and no further evaluation of Mr. Stebbins' competence to stand trial
is indicated at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Further evaluation: No
Inpatient: No Choose an item.
15a Extended: No
Other:
Reasoning: In my clinical opinion, at the time of this writing, Mr. Stebbins does not require
involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital secondary to being a risk to himself
or others by reason of mental illness. Mr. Stebbins was cooperative with the
evaluation process. His expressed thoughts were coherent (understandable), linear,
and largely goal-directed. He did not appear to present with heightened anxiety or
depression, nor did he present with symptoms of mania or psychosis. While he made
some potentially distorted comments during the evaluation about police officers (in
8
an incident unrelated to the instant offense) and a prior criminal matter he took to
trial out of another court, he did not perseverate around this, nor did his statements
around this appear tied to the instant offense. Additionally, Mr. Stebbins denied
present suicidal and homicidal ideation, plan, or intent. Thus, at the time of the
writing of this report, it is my clinical opinion that Mr. Stebbins does not pose a
substantial risk of harm to himself or others due to symptoms of mental illness and
therefore, in my clinical opinion, he does not meet criteria for involuntary psychiatric
hospitalization.
LEGAL OUTCOME:
Committed [] Yes, pursuant to Choose an item. [X] No
Disposition [] DMH at: Choose an item
[] BSH
[] HOC specify:
[] Other specify:
Bail []Yes Amount: [] Held Without
[X] Personal Recognizance Unknown
Next Court Date 3/18/2024
Honorable Unknown
Additional Information
Evaluator Amanda Silveira, Psy.D., DFP Date 1/30/2024
Phone (774) 423-4018 Email asilveira@teamcenturion.com
Read and Reviewed by (if applicable): N/A
Date: Click or tap to enter a date.
Additional Info:
Mandated Reporting: [] Yes [X] No
If yes, please describe:
Contact Click or tap to enter a date.
9
.jpeg)
