Massachusetts General Laws
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 23B (2026)
Accused; statements made while undergoing psychiatric examination; admissibility
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MAmalegislature.gov (official)
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Section 23B. In the trial of an indictment or complaint for any crime, no statement made by a defendant therein subjected to psychiatric examination pursuant to sections fifteen or sixteen of chapter one hundred and twenty-three for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall be admissible in evidence against him on any issue other than that of his mental condition, nor shall it be admissible in evidence against him on that issue if such statement constitutes a confession of guilt of the crime charged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases, 1974–2017 · leading case: Blaisdell v. Commonwealth, 364 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. 1977).
Blaisdell v. Commonwealth, 364 N.E.2d 191 (Mass. 1977). “The Commonwealth contends that G.L.c. 233, § 23B, does this, G.L.c. 233, § 23B, as amended by St.”
Commonwealth v. Collett, 439 N.E.2d 1223 (Mass. 1982). “753, 768-769 (1977), to protect certain statements made in court-ordered psychiatric examinations under G.L.c. 233, § 23B, are instructive. The in camera hearing is the proper procedure to allow the judge to determine whether or not the privilege applies to communications made…”
Vuthy Seng v. Commonwealth, 839 N.E.2d 283 (Mass. 2005). “The judge’s order made no reference to G. L. c. 233, § 23B, but we agree with the Commonwealth that to the extent the defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination is implicated, he will also be protected by the immunity provisions of that statute.”
Commonwealth v. Harris, 11 N.E.3d 95 (Mass. 2014). “12 In addition, to the extent a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination is implicated in a competency evaluation, he will be protected by the immunity protections of G. L. c. 233, § 23B. 13 See Vuthy Seng v.”
Attorney Gen. v. Colleton, 444 N.E.2d 915 (Mass. 1982). “The issue raised here was not before the court in Blais-dell, but, to the extent its holding in Blaisdell is relevant, that holding is that the protections of G. L. c. 233, § 23B (barring the use “in evidence” of statements constituting confessions of guilt of the crime charged…”
Commonwealth v. Callahan, 438 N.E.2d 5 (Mass. 1982). “He claimed that the statements violated the terms of G. L. c. 233, § 23B, and this court’s decision in Blaisdell v.”
Commonwealth v. O'CONNOR, 387 N.E.2d 190 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979). “The order strictly limited the use of the results of the examination along the lines of G. L. c. 233, § 23B, and within the guidelines of Blaisdell v.”
Commonwealth v. Sliech-Brodeur, 930 N.E.2d 91 (Mass. 2010). “784, 789 (1982) (Callahan), we clarified that the “defendant, by voluntarily proffering such evidence to the jury, has waived his privilege against self-incrimination to a limited extent,” recognizing that the limitations on the use of the defendant’s compelled interview…”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 914 N.E.2d 332 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009). “Fiore’s trial testimony violated G. L. c. 233, § 23B, and that the judge erroneously restricted the defendant’s cross-examination of Dr.”
Rosenthal v. O'Brien, 713 F.3d 676 (1st Cir. 2013). “See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 23B. Zalkind had a firm understanding of the relevant law and facts on this issue.”
Commonwealth v. Benoit, 410 N.E.2d 347 (Mass. 1991). “Esau’s testimony exceeded the limitations of G. L. c. 233, § 23B (1990 ed.). 7 The record is not clear what Dr.”
Commonwealth v. Street, 446 N.E.2d 670 (Mass. 1983). “” G. L. c. 233, § 23B, as amended by St. 1970, c.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.