WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

H 4016

Clinton HS football champs

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Terry Alexander and 121 co-sponsors

Mandates admissibility and instruction on neuroscience evidence of fight-or-flight in criminal cases to assess liability, intent, and defenses like self-defense.

Introduced and adopted
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · H 4016

Summary — H.4016 (filed as House Docket No. 1748)

Title shown in docket: "Clinton HS football champs" (see Notes); Sponsor: Rep. Russell E. Holmes (6th Suffolk)
Classification: resolution (docket text contains legislation) — Filed: 01/15/2025

Overview / Purpose

H.4016 would add a new chapter to the Massachusetts General Laws (Chapter 233A, “Neuroscience in Criminal Proceedings”) to expressly allow and govern the use of neuroscience evidence about the involuntary “fight-or-flight” response in criminal cases. The bill defines key terms, clarifies admissibility, requires jury instructions when such evidence is presented, and amends related statutory provisions to admit records of neurological examinations. It is intended to make scientific evidence about acute physiological stress responses available to bear on criminal liability, intent, culpability, and certain defenses (notably self‑defense, provocation, and felony‑murder constructs).

Key provisions and changes

  • New definitions (Chapter 233A, Sec. 1)
    • “Fight or flight response”: described as an involuntary physiological reaction that can temporarily overwhelm capacity for reason, conscience control, and judgment.
    • “Neuroscience evidence”: includes neuroimaging, neuropsychological assessments and empirical findings about brain function, development, and trauma responses.
  • Admissibility (Sec. 2–3)
    • Neuroscience evidence about activation of fight-or-flight responses is admissible when relevant to criminal liability, intent, or culpability.
    • Such evidence may be used to show the defendant’s conduct was driven by involuntary instincts rather than conscious, controlled decision‑making.
  • Self‑defense and burden implications (Sec. 4)
    • Defendants asserting self‑defense may introduce neuroscience evidence to show it was cognitively impossible to avoid combat or to limit force.
    • If credible neuroscience evidence shows impairment, the court must consider it mitigating the defendant’s inability to meet self‑defense requirements.
    • When such impairment is shown, the bill directs a burden shift: the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions exceeded what was objectively necessary despite the impairment.
  • Other applications (Secs. 5–6)
    • Permits neuroscience evidence in provocation cases (consistent with Commonwealth v. Escobar) and to address constructive malice in felony‑murder situations where fight‑or‑flight was triggered.
  • Jury instructions (Chapter 278, new Sec. 36; and Chapter 233 Sec. 79 amendment)
    • Courts must instruct juries on the relationship between fight‑or‑flight neuroscience evidence and legal standards for criminal liability.
    • Jurors are to be told such evidence can show significant impairment and must be given due weight in assessing self‑defense requirements.
  • No new affirmative defense (Sec. 8)
    • The bill states it does not create a new affirmative defense, only governs admissibility and consideration of evidence under existing standards.
  • Records admissibility (amendment to G.L. c.233, §79)
    • Records/reports of neurological examinations (including fight‑or‑flight assessments) are admissible subject to Chapter 233A.

Who would be affected

  • Criminal defendants (particularly those claiming self‑defense, provocation, or involved in felony‑murder charges)
  • Prosecutors and defense attorneys (litigation strategy, evidentiary disputes)
  • Trial judges and juries (new mandatory or model instructions and decisions on admissibility)
  • Forensic and clinical experts (neuroscience, neuropsychology, neuroimaging)
  • Court systems (potentially more hearings on admissibility and more expert testimony; costs and training implications)

Procedural/timeline notes

  • Filed/Presented: 01/15/2025 (House Docket No. 1748), presented by Rep. Russell E. Holmes.
  • Introduced and adopted: 02/18/2025 (per docket).
  • Referred to Judiciary Committee: 04/10/2025.
  • Senate concurred: 04/14/2025.
  • Hearing scheduled: 09/23/2025 (A‑2, 1:00 PM–5:00 PM).
  • Related bill: HD 1748 (listed as replacement).

Potential impacts and issues to watch

  • Evidentiary disputes over scientific validity, reliability, and appropriate expert methodologies (Daubert/Frye‑type questions at hearings).
  • Practical effects on burden of proof and verdicts if juries credit neuroscience evidence as mitigating capacity or intent.
  • Increased demand for neuroscience assessments and potential cost/availability issues for indigent defendants.
  • Need for judicial guidance and standardized jury instructions to avoid inconsistent application.

Notes / Anomaly

The file also contains the full text of a ceremonial South Carolina House resolution honoring the Clinton High School football team’s 2024 Class AA championship — duplicated verbatim. That resolution appears unrelated to the Massachusetts statutory text creating Chapter 233A; the docketed bill’s substantive content is the neuroscience/criminal‑procedure provisions summarized above.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.