Commonwealth v. Dixon
458 Mass. 446
Mass.2010Background
- In 1991, a black male, age 16–18, 6'0", 160–170 lbs, abducted, assaulted, raped, and robbed a Suffolk County woman; another similar 1991 attack occurred later the same year.
- DNA testing was not available in 1991; subsequent reanalysis showed both cases involved the same unknown perpetrator.
- In 2006, grand juries indicted the suspect for March and July 1991 crimes using a John Doe descriptor tied to a DNA profile (Appendix A) and physical descriptors.
- In 2008, Jerry Dixon, while imprisoned, provided a DNA sample; profile matched the DNA descriptors in the indictments; prosecutors amended the indictments to add the name Dixon.
- Dixon moved to dismiss in 2009 arguing the 15-year statute of limitations (G. L. c. 277, § 63) had lapsed and the Doe indictments failed to provide notice; the question was certified for interlocutory review.
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held the indictments were valid under art. 12, tolled the statute, and thus the prosecutions were not time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does DNA-based John Doe indictment satisfy art. 12? | Dixon argues Doe indictment omits identity needed for notice. | Commonwealth contends DNA profile is a sufficient description of identity. | DNA profile satisfies art. 12 description |
| Does a DNA indictment toll the 15-year limit in G. L. c. 277, § 63? | Indictments late to name Dixon bar the charges due to tolling failure. | Indictments found and filed within 15 years toll the period. | Indictments found and filed within 15 years toll the statute; not time-barred |
| Is there a due process or statutory purpose problem with amending the indictment to add a name after the limitation period? | Late addition of the defendant's name deprives notice under art. 12. | Art. 12 notice is satisfied by a valid indictment; amendment is permissible and not prejudicial. | No due process problem; name amendment permitted without reviving expired tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Connor v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 572 (Mass. 1973) (DNA-like specificity can satisfy art. 12 particularity; John Doe indictments require some description)
- Commonwealth v. Shanley, 455 Mass. 752 (Mass. 2010) (statutory tolling when indictment found and filed within applicable period)
- Commonwealth v. Geagan, 339 Mass. 487 (Mass. 1959) (tolls when indictment timely found/filed; multiple considerations for limitations)
- Commonwealth v. Rahim, 441 Mass. 273 (Mass. 2004) (indictment timing controls tolling under §63)
- Commonwealth v. Gove, 366 Mass. 351 (Mass. 1974) (speedy-trial concerns and due process timing considerations)
- People v. Robinson, 47 Cal. 4th 1104 (Cal. 2010) (DNA-based identifications can satisfy particularity and constitutional standards)