Commonwealth v. Morgan, 476 Mass. 768

Defendant Joel D. Morgan, a U.S. Army veteran with combat service and diagnosed PTSD, was arrested (2014) for OUI (second offense), possession of heroin, negligent operation, and leaving scene; he admitted to sufficient facts on a prior OUI in 2004.
After arrest Morgan engaged in VA treatment (detox, PTSD counseling, medication-assisted treatment) and maintained steady employment; counsel moved under the VALOR Act (G. L. c. 276A §§ 10–11) for pretrial diversion seeking either a continuance without a finding (CWOF) or dismissal upon successful completion.
The prosecutor opposed CWOF or dismissal for the OUI second-offense charge based on G. L. c. 90, § 24/24D, which generally precludes filing or CWOF for repeat OUI offenders.
The trial judge reported two questions of law to the Appeals Court: (1) whether a judge may enter a CWOF after an admission to an OUI second-offense under the VALOR Act; and (2) if CWOF is unavailable, whether the court may dismiss the charge upon successful diversion over the Commonwealth’s objection.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct review to decide whether the VALOR Act amendments to the pretrial diversion statute authorize dismissal or CWOF for qualifying veterans charged with OUI second-offense notwithstanding G. L. c. 90 constraints.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether G. L. c. 276A (as amended by VALOR Act §§10–11) authorizes a judge to enter a CWOF or dismiss charges after successful diversion for qualifying veterans	Commonwealth: VALOR only permits a short continuance/assessment; it does not authorize alternative dispositions (CWOF/dismissal), so prosecution would resume	Morgan: VALOR incorporated pretrial diversion protections (CWOF/dismissal) for veterans, like §2 for young adults, so judge may order CWOF or dismissal after successful program completion	Yes. Court: VALOR intended veterans to receive the same diversion benefits (CWOF/dismissal) as young adults; judges may order those dispositions in appropriate cases
Whether the VALOR Act’s authorization conflicts with G. L. c. 90 (OUI statute) which restricts CWOF/dismissal for second/subsequent OUI offenses	Commonwealth: OUI statute controls as more specific and precludes CWOF/dismissal for second-offense, thus VALOR cannot override those limits	Morgan: VALOR reflects legislative policy to provide rehabilitative options for veterans; statutes overlap and should be harmonized to allow discretionary diversion in appropriate cases	Yes. Court: Neither statute is clearly superior; read harmoniously, VALOR authorizes discretionary CWOF/dismissal for eligible military defendants despite OUI statute’s general limits; judges retain discretion and public-safety considerations guide decisions

Commonwealth v. Cole, 468 Mass. 294 (addresses limits on judicial dismissal over prosecutorial objection)
Commonwealth v. Cheney, 440 Mass. 568 (judicial dismissal requires statutory authority)
Commonwealth v. Guzman, 446 Mass. 344 (statuteally authorized dismissal does not violate separation of powers)
Commonwealth v. Pyles, 423 Mass. 717 (continuance without a finding upheld where statutorily authorized)
Commonwealth v. Harris, 443 Mass. 714 (more-specific statute canon explained)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 465 Mass. 202 (read related statutes harmoniously)
Wing v. Commissioner of Probation, 473 Mass. 368 (statutory interpretation principles: mischief and purpose)
Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 464 Mass. 365 (avoid construing statutes to render provisions null or absurd)
Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (collateral consequences of conviction)