131 N.E.3d 230
Mass.2019Background:
- Defendant charged in Boston Municipal Court with assault and battery; at initial appearance she sought a continuance so probation could assess eligibility for pretrial diversion.
- Judge continued arraignment over the Commonwealth's objection and imposed a no-contact condition; later the judge found defendant eligible and continued proceedings under G. L. c. 276A § 5 for diversion.
- Commonwealth later sought arraignment and removal from diversion based on alleged violations; a judge ordered GPS monitoring (with Commonwealth's assent) but probation contended it lacked authority to monitor because there had been no arraignment.
- Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition for extraordinary relief; the single justice reported the matter to the SJC for decision.
- Statutory context: 2018 reforms expanded adult pretrial diversion but G. L. c. 276A § 3 uses the phrase "at arraignment;" other new diversion statutes explicitly permit pre-arraignment diversion.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether G. L. c. 276A § 3 requires arraignment, at the Commonwealth's request, before an adult defendant may be placed in pretrial diversion | Commonwealth: yes; judge must arraign on prosecutor's request to ensure eligibility and preserve prosecutorial prerogative | Newberry: no; requiring arraignment defeats diversion's purpose of avoiding collateral consequences and precludes pre-arraignment diversion | Held: § 3 requires arraignment if the Commonwealth requests it; a judge may not decline to arraign over the Commonwealth's objection, though the Commonwealth may choose not to seek arraignment |
| Whether a judge may impose conditions of release (e.g., no-contact, GPS, drug screening) and order probation supervision during the § 3 screening period or when the Commonwealth does not seek arraignment | Commonwealth: no; absent arraignment the judge and probation lack statutory/inherent authority to impose or supervise such conditions | Newberry: yes; judges may set conditions at initial appearance and probation may supervise and monitor as ordered | Held: Judges may order conditions of release pre-arraignment and may direct probation to provide supervision/monitoring; Commonwealth waived contemporaneous objection in this case |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morgan, 476 Mass. 768 (explaining rehabilitative purpose of pretrial diversion)
- Commonwealth v. Dayton, 477 Mass. 224 (statutory interpretation: do not imply language omitted by Legislature)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 423 Mass. 517 (at initial appearance court must arraign or set time and determine release conditions)
- First Justice of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep't v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Bristol Div. of the Juvenile Court Dep't, 438 Mass. 387 (probation duties and court-ordered supervision)
- Sisson v. Lhowe, 460 Mass. 705 (use plain statutory language as primary indicator of legislative intent)
- Commonwealth v. Newton N., 478 Mass. 747 (prosecutor's decision not to pursue arraignment is within Commonwealth's authority)