Heard: November 3, 2017.
action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 5,
case was tried before Kenneth W. Salinger, J.
H. Erickson for the defendant.
Jessica Langsam, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Present: Hanlon, Massing, & Wendlandt, JJ.
appeal presents the question whether, in connection with a
trial to civilly commit an individual as a sexually dangerous
person,  the written report of a qualified forensic
psychologist (who is neither a designated qualified examiner
nor the defendant's treating psychologist) is admissible
as a "psychiatric and psychological record and
report of the person named in the petition." G. L. c.
123A, § 14(c), inserted by St. 1999, c. 74, § 8.
Concluding that it is and that the defendant's other
arguments lack merit, we affirm.
briefly summarize the relevant facts as found by the trial
judge. In 1989, the defendant, Charles Dinardo, was convicted
in Connecticut of aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault
of a child, and risk of injury to a minor. The victim was the
defendant's daughter, whom he sexually abused
continuously from when she was six years old until she was
eighteen, with the exception of a one year hiatus when the
victim's mother took her abroad. The abuse began when she
was six or seven years old. He would place a wire in his own
and then the victim's anus while he masturbated. When she
was eight or nine years old and continuing until she was
twelve, he engaged in weekly oral and anal sex with her. Over
the next six years, he engaged in weekly sexual contact with
the victim. On one occasion, the defendant told an adult male
friend that he could have sex with the victim; the friend
proceeded to have oral sex with her. The defendant expressed
disappointment that he was not afforded the opportunity to
watch. The victim was afraid to tell anyone about the abuse,
but when she was eighteen, she began to resist the defendant
and ultimately reported the sexual abuse to her therapist.
The defendant was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to
twelve years of incarceration.
his release, the defendant again was arrested in Connecticut
after reports were made that he was in a parked van talking
to young boys. He was found guilty of breach of the peace,
and sentenced to probation; however, he violated the
conditions of probation and served a prison sentence.
2007, the defendant approached a fourteen year old boy at a
train show in Holliston, Massachusetts, and asked to speak to
him alone, ostensibly to give him information about trains.
When he had the boy alone, the defendant instead remarked,
"[s]perm is an energy drink, you know." When the
boy did not reply, the defendant stated, "I'd really
love to blow you. I'll give you twenty dollars." The
boy walked away, told his father, and identified the
defendant. The father later reported the incident; the
defendant was arrested in Connecticut. During the drive back
to Massachusetts, the defendant told the police officer he
should have stayed away from the boy, but "his big mouth
had gotten him in trouble again." In a search of the
defendant's apartment, the police found a photograph that
the defendant had taken of a different boy sitting on a model
train. The photograph was captioned "boy who likes to
give blow jobs and getting finger fucked by older
neighbor-200%." The defendant was convicted in
Massachusetts of enticing a child under the age of sixteen
and was sentenced to four and one-half to five years in
defendant's discharge time neared, the district attorney
retained forensic psychologist Dr. Katrin Rouse Weir to
conduct a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the
district attorney should seek to commit the defendant as a
sexually dangerous person. Rouse Weir did not interview the
defendant; instead, she reviewed his police reports,
probation records, and treatment records. In her report,
dated June, 2012, she opined that the defendant suffered from
a mental abnormality, pedophilia, and that he was likely to
reoffend if released. In July, 2012, the district attorney
filed a petition for commitment of the defendant as a
sexually dangerous person, pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, Â§
12(b). The defendant was held at the Massachusetts Treatment
Center (treatment center) pending a determination of probable
cause that the defendant was a sexually dangerous person,
pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, Â§ 12 (c).
January, 2013, following a stipulation to probable cause by
the parties, the hearing judge found probable cause. The
hearing judge ordered the defendant held for sixty days
pending examination and diagnosis by two qualified examiners,
pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 13 (a.) . The two qualified
examiners, Dr. Mark Schaefer and Dr. Greg Belle, each
interviewed the defendant. Reflecting on his abuse of his
daughter that continued for over a decade, the defendant
acknowledged that he abused his daughter and that the police
reports were accurate. He stated that (i) he thought the
victim would enjoy the abuse, (ii) the abuse would further
the bond between them, and (iii) he could not stop himself
even though he knew it was wrong. The defendant denied having
any sexual contact with the boys with whom he spoke from his
van, but admitted soliciting the boy at the train show. While
he regretted his inability to keep his mouth shut, he wanted
to be part of the teenage boy's sexual experimentation.
February, 2013, the district attorney moved for trial,
pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 14 (a.) . The motion was
allowed, and the defendant was ordered confined to the
treatment center for the duration of the trial. In 2013 and