Commonwealth v. Muckle
SJC 12269
| Mass. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Paul Muckle was prosecuted in Boston Municipal Court (BMC) and convicted of intimidation under G. L. c. 268, § 13B, among other offenses; the alleged victim was opposing counsel in Muckle's federal civil case.
- After trial, the BMC judge allowed Muckle's posttrial motion vacating the § 13B conviction for lack of jurisdiction; the charge was dismissed.
- The Appeals Court reversed the dismissal and affirmed the convictions; a dissenting judge in the Appeals Court would have upheld the dismissal.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted review limited to whether G. L. c. 218, § 26 confers BMC/District Court jurisdiction over § 13B prosecutions when the victim is not a witness or juror.
- Section 218, § 26 expressly grants the BMC/District Court concurrent jurisdiction with Superior Court over "intimidation of a witness or juror under [§ 13B]," but does not mention the other categories of persons listed in § 13B.
- The SJC concluded the jurisdictional statute’s language is limited to witnesses and jurors and therefore affirmed the dismissal of the intimidation count for lack of jurisdiction; the case was remanded to correct docket/ mittimus errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 218, § 26 gives BMC/District Court jurisdiction over all § 13B intimidation offenses or only those against witnesses/jurors | Commonwealth: § 26 should be read to allow BMC/District Court jurisdiction over § 13B generally (as Appeals Court held) | Muckle: § 26’s specific wording limits jurisdiction to intimidation of a witness or juror only | Held: § 26 confers jurisdiction only for intimidation of a witness or juror; intimidation of other listed persons must be prosecuted in Superior Court |
| Whether the statutory text or legislative history controls interpretation of § 26’s scope | Commonwealth: legislative purpose supports broader jurisdiction | Muckle: plain text controls; expressio unius excludes other § 13B categories | Held: plain language and statutory structure control; expressio unius applies; legislative edits show deliberate choice |
| Whether interpreting § 26 broadly would avoid absurd results or better reflect penalty changes in 1996 Act | Commonwealth: broader reading avoids anomalous jurisdictional gaps | Muckle: narrower reading is permissible; Legislature may have intended Superior Court for most § 13B offenses | Held: no absurdity found; Legislature plausibly intended Superior Court jurisdiction for non-witness/juror intimidation |
| Remedy after jurisdictional dismissal when sentencing and mittimus reference dismissed count | Commonwealth: correct the record to reflect resulting sentences | Muckle: dismissal requires vacatur and correction | Held: dismiss count 1 affirmed; remand to amend docket sheet and mittimus accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Meikle v. Nurse, 474 Mass. 207 (statutory interpretation focuses on legislative intent and text)
- Lowery v. Klemm, 446 Mass. 572 (use ordinary meaning and legislative purpose in construing statutes)
- Skawski v. Greenfield Investors Prop. Dev. LLC, 473 Mass. 580 (expressio unius est exclusio alterius canon)
- Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena, 447 Mass. 88 (look to other parts of statute when construing a clause)
- Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326 (statutory construction principles)
- Bynes v. School Comm. of Boston, 411 Mass. 264 (avoid interpretations that render statutory language superfluous)
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, 476 Mass. 163 (absurd-results doctrine applied sparingly)
- Commonwealth v. Muckle, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 384 (Appeals Court opinion reversing dismissal; contains dissent endorsing narrower jurisdictional reading)