Grattan v. Com.

Summary

The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court's finding that Grattan was competent to stand trial was supported by the evidence and was not plainly wrong. It also held that the trial court acted within its discretion under the governing statute by excluding Grattan's expert testimony on his sanity at the time of the offenses after he repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Commonwealth's evaluators despite warnings. The court did not reach Grattan's constitutional challenge because it had not been preserved.