118 N.E.3d 107
Mass.2019Background
- Defendant convicted of first-degree murder and related firearms offenses; sentenced to life without parole.
- Defendant died (while the appellate record was being assembled) before his direct appeal as of right could be decided.
- Trial judge, relying on Massachusetts precedent, granted defense motion to abate ab initio: vacated convictions, dismissed indictments, and dismissed the appeal.
- Commonwealth sought direct appellate review, arguing Massachusetts should abandon abatement ab initio or at least recognize a suicide exception or adopt a substitution rule.
- Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) concluded the common-law doctrine of abatement ab initio is outdated and should be replaced prospectively with a rule dismissing the appeal as moot and directing the trial court to note that the conviction stood but was neither affirmed nor reversed because the defendant died.
- The SJC reversed the trial judge’s abatement order, dismissed the appeal as moot, and instructed the trial court to make the specified notation in the record; the new rule applies to this case and prospectively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abatement ab initio remains the correct common-law rule when a defendant dies pending a direct appeal | Commonwealth: doctrine should be abandoned because it is outdated and harms victims and third parties | Defendant: abatement ab initio is longstanding practice and vindicates defendants who cannot complete appeals | Court: Abandoned abatement ab initio; dismissal of appeal as moot with notation in trial record instead (applied to this case and prospectively) |
| Whether substitution (allowing personal representative or other party to continue appeal) should be adopted | Commonwealth: favor substitution or Alabama-style notation to protect survivors and permit continuation in some cases | Defendant: vindication of deceased is not sufficient; substitution raises practical and policy issues | Court: Rejected adopting substitution by judicial rule; left substitution policy to Legislature; declined to adopt via superintendence power |
| Whether to adopt a suicide exception (if death was intentional to trigger abatement) | Commonwealth: requested suicide exception where defendant killed self to secure abatement to benefit heirs | Defendant: evidence of motive insufficient; generally opposes carving exceptions | Court: No need to decide; rejected abatement doctrine so suicide exception unnecessary and courts that considered it have rejected or avoided it |
| Retroactivity: whether new rule should apply to this case and generally | Commonwealth argued for prospective application but sought relief here | Defendant argued precedent should control (Eisen) | Court: Applied new rule to this case (since Commonwealth challenged trial court order) and declared rule prospective otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Durham v. United States, 401 U.S. 481 (1971) (federal courts had uniformly vacated convictions on death pending certiorari)
- Dove v. United States, 423 U.S. 325 (1976) (overruled Durham as to certiorari petitions; dismissed petition where petitioner died)
- Commonwealth v. Eisen, 368 Mass. 813 (1975) (Massachusetts rescript stating that when defendant dies pending appeal, judgment should normally be vacated and indictment dismissed)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 379 Mass. 917 (1980) (followed Eisen and remanded for dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Latour, 397 Mass. 1007 (1986) (restated general practice of dismissal upon death pending appeal)
- United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004) (describing abatement ab initio and noting lack of articulated rationale)
- People v. Griffin, 328 P.3d 91 (Colo. 2014) (discussed doctrine as court-created and analyzed modern rejection/limits on abatement)