Commonwealth v. Charles, 466 Mass. 63

Background

In 2011–2012, widespread alleged misconduct by chemist Annie Dookhan at the Hinton State Laboratory (forensic drug lab) came to light; she is alleged to have falsified tests and tampered with evidence affecting thousands of cases.
The Superior Court created special “drug lab sessions” and, under Mass. R. Crim. P. 47 and Orders of Assignment, appointed five retired judges as special magistrates to expedite postconviction work (arraignments, discovery, hearings, proposed findings, plea colloquies in some counties).
Three Essex County matters raised procedural and authority disputes: (1) whether a Superior Court judge or special magistrate may stay execution of a sentence pending a new-trial motion (Charles); (2) whether a special magistrate may reconsider and grant a stay after a judge denied it (Milette); and (3) whether special magistrates may conduct guilty-plea colloquies and report findings to a judge (District Attorney’s petition).
In Charles and Milette, defendants sought stays of sentence pending resolution of Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 new-trial motions grounded on the Hinton-lab allegations; special magistrates in some instances issued findings and, in Milette, granted a stay that a judge later vacated.
The Commonwealth sought superintendence review under G. L. c. 211, § 3; the single justice reported three questions to the full court addressing the authority of judges vs. special magistrates and the validity of plea colloquies conducted by special magistrates.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) May a Superior Court judge or a Rule 47 special magistrate stay execution of a sentence pending disposition of a new‑trial motion?	Commonwealth: stays are permitted by Rule 31 only when an appeal is pending; no authority to stay absent appeal.	Defendants (Charles/Millette): judge (and by assignment magistrate) may stay pending new‑trial motion given exceptional circumstances from Hinton lab misconduct.	A judge has inherent authority to stay execution of sentence in exceptional circumstances; a special magistrate does not have authority to enter such a stay but may make proposed findings for a judge’s de novo review.
2) May a special magistrate reconsider and allow a stay after a judge previously denied the same motion?	Commonwealth: special magistrate lacked authority to reconsider and grant stay after judge denied it.	Milette: changed circumstances from unfolding Hinton investigation justified reconsideration by special magistrate to ease judges’ burden.	No. A special magistrate cannot reconsider and overrule a judge’s decision; a special magistrate may make proposed findings on reconsideration for a judge to decide.
3) May special magistrates conduct guilty‑plea colloquies and report findings to a judge (are such colloquies valid)?	District Attorney: plea colloquies should be conducted by judges to assure validity; procedure by special magistrates exceeds their authority and creates uncertainty.	Superior Court: Rule 47 and the Order of Assignment permit magistrates to make findings and report to judges; magistrates only recommend, judges accept/reject and impose sentence.	Yes. Special magistrates may conduct plea colloquies with consent, make findings, and report to a judge who must verify and accept/reject the plea; the judge retains ultimate authority to accept pleas and impose sentence.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 431 Mass. 506 (discussed inherent judicial power to stay sentences)
Blankenburg v. Commonwealth, 260 Mass. 369 (describing inherent powers essential to judicial function)
Mariano v. Judge of Dist. Court of Cent. Berkshire, 243 Mass. 90 (sentences executed forthwith unless stayed for exceptional reasons)
Commonwealth v. Allen, 378 Mass. 489 (standard that a stay pending appeal/new trial requires reasonable possibility of success)