Commonwealth v. Hardin
SJC 12067
Mass.Dec 6, 2016Background
- James C. Hardin was charged in a four-count complaint: malicious destruction of property (> $250), breaking and entering a motor vehicle (daytime) with intent to commit a felony, larceny (≤ $250), and possession of a class B controlled substance.
- Hardin pleaded guilty to malicious destruction and drug possession; the judge dismissed the breaking-and-entering and larceny counts for lack of probable cause.
- The Commonwealth appealed; the Appeals Court reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court allowed further review and addressed whether the dismissed counts should stand.
- Hardin conceded probable cause but argued the complaint failed to allege a cognizable crime because it described the stolen/broken-into property as the property of "Known to Commonwealth," not explicitly "another person." He claimed the breaking-and-entering count also failed to allege entry into property of another.
- The SJC held the complaint, read reasonably, provided fair notice and adequately alleged property offenses (victim = a property owner "known to the Commonwealth"); any lack of specificity could be cured by a bill of particulars.
- The SJC reversed the dismissal of counts 2 and 3 and remanded to Boston Municipal Court for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint failed to state a crime by using "Known to Commonwealth" instead of naming an owner | Complaint language plus statutory references gave fair notice; adequately alleged offenses against a property owner | Language is defective and fails to allege an essential element (victim = another person) so complaint is jurisdictionally defective | Complaint adequate; "Known to Commonwealth" reasonably alleges property of another; no jurisdictional defect |
| Whether the breaking-and-entering count failed to allege entry into another's property | Count, read in common sense, alleges breaking and entering into a motor vehicle with intent to commit a felony | Count omits explicit allegation that vehicle belonged to another; thus lacks an essential element | Count sufficiently alleges the offense; dismissal reversed |
| Whether precedent (Commonwealth v. Wilson) requires dismissal here | Commonwealth: Wilson is distinguishable because Wilson alleged assault on the Commonwealth (no cognizable victim) | Defendant: Wilson supports dismissal where complaint alleges an improper or impossible victim | Wilson distinguished: property crimes can have a non-human or unnamed owner; complaint here charged a property offense capable of having a victim |
| Whether any deficiency is incurable or waivable by guilty plea | Commonwealth: any lack of detail can be remedied via bill of particulars; guilty plea does not negate the complaint's adequacy | Hardin: jurisdictional defects cannot be waived by plea and would require dismissal | Any lack of specificity could be cured by bill of particulars; no jurisdictional defect existed; plea does not waive jurisdictional challenges but none justified here |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Va Meng Joe, 425 Mass. 99 (discusses appellate affirmation on alternative grounds)
- Commonwealth v. Canty, 466 Mass. 535 (fair notice requirement for complaint; jurisdictional issues may be raised anytime)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 416 (defective complaint where alleged victim was the Commonwealth; distinguished)
- Commonwealth v. Fernandes, 430 Mass. 517 (complaint must give sufficient clarity to show violation and permit defendant to know accusation)
- Commonwealth v. Palladino, 358 Mass. 28 (discusses jurisdictional defects and requirements for charging instruments)