5 N.E.3d 1210
Mass.2014Background
- In 1992, a fourteen-year-old was charged in district court with delinquency by reason of rape of a child with force and admitted to sufficient facts for a delinquency adjudication on statutory rape.
- A presentence evaluation under G. L. c. 123, § 15 (e) followed the admission and adjudication, with the juvenile placed on probation rather than committed to DYS.
- The evaluator observed the juvenile’s withdrawal when the father was present but greater responsiveness when he was alone, and linked family stress from the father’s lawsuits to the juvenile’s condition.
- The judge adjudicated delinquent and imposed probation with conditions including no contact with the victim outside school.
- In 2011, over eighteen years later, the juvenile moved to vacate the admission and for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), claiming coercion by his father.
- A different district court judge held a nonevidentiary hearing, credited coercion based on affidavits and the presentence evaluation, and did not explicitly address a substantial issue warranting an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the admission voluntary under Rule 30 (c) (3)? | Muniur alleges coercion by father rendered admission involuntary. | Commonwealth argues no substantial issue requiring an evidentiary hearing. | Vacate and remand for evidentiary hearing on voluntariness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Marrero, 459 Mass. 235 (Mass. 2011) (standard for when to hold an evidentiary hearing on Rule 30 issues)
- Commonwealth v. Shuman, 445 Mass. 268 (Mass. 2005) (requirement to address substantial issue in Rule 30 proceedings)
- Commonwealth v. Yardley Y., 464 Mass. 223 (Mass. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard in ruling on Rule 30 motions)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 383 Mass. 253 (Mass. 1981) (early articulation of substantial issue and evidentiary hearing considerations)