491 Mass. 390
Mass.2023Background
- At the 1994 retrial of Frank DiBenedetto and codefendant Louis Costa, the Commonwealth offered a "package deal": both defendants would have to accept plea bargains to manslaughter for the offer to apply. DiBenedetto accepted; Costa refused.
- Both were convicted at retrial of first‑degree murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms without parole; later procedural developments led to Costa’s resentencing and parole (he was a juvenile at the time of the crime).
- In May 2021 DiBenedetto filed a Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 motion seeking to vacate his murder convictions and enforce the 1994 plea offer (arguing the package condition violated his due process right to decide whether to plead). A Superior Court judge denied the motion.
- DiBenedetto obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court under G. L. c. 278, § 33E on the ground the claim presented a new and substantial question.
- The SJC held the package plea did not violate substantive or procedural due process, affirmed the denial of the motion to enforce the expired offer, but adopted a rule requiring disclosure to the plea judge where a plea is conditioned on multiple defendants (so voluntariness can be adequately probed).
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | DiBenedetto's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does a package plea conditioned on a codefendant's acceptance violate due process/fundamental right to choose plea? | Prosecutor has broad discretion in plea bargaining and may condition a plea on codefendant acceptance. | The package condition unlawfully makes DiBenedetto's ability to plead depend on Costa's choice, infringing his right to decide whether to plead. | Package pleas do not violate fundamental due process; prosecutors may require codefendant agreement. |
| 2) Is the claim waived or is it a new and substantial question under G. L. c. 278, § 33E? | Claim waived because not raised earlier (e.g., in 2005 motion). | Lafler/Frye (2012) changed the law about plea‑phase constitutional harms; defendant lacked a prior genuine opportunity to raise this theory. | Not waived: Lafler/Frye made the theory available later, so the claim is new and substantial. |
| 3) If the plea offer was unconstitutional or counsel‑impaired, should the court enforce the expired 1994 plea? | No enforcement; expired offers are not automatically revived. | Following Lafler, the appropriate remedy is enforcing (reoffering) the original plea. | Court declined to enforce the expired offer; denied motion to vacate convictions and impose the plea. |
| 4) Are there special procedural concerns or protections required for package pleas? | No per se coercion; standard voluntariness inquiry suffices. | Package deals create unique coercion risks (pressure from co‑defendants/family) and require special judicial inquiry. | Adopted additional protection: trial judge must be informed when a plea is conditioned on multiple defendants so voluntariness can be probed; failure to disclose permits plea withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (plea‑phase counsel errors can require remedy, including reoffer of original plea)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (Sixth Amendment effective‑assistance protections apply to pretrial plea offers)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 384 Mass. 519 (1981) (noting package plea arrangements have survived challenge)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutor has broad discretion in plea offers; restrictions apply where decision is arbitrary or based on impermissible classifications)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea bargaining requires procedural safeguards; promises to be honored)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Mescual‑Cruz, 387 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (package deals pose risk that one defendant may be coerced by another)