Commonwealth v. Pon
469 Mass. 296
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant charged with OUI and leaving the scene in 2007; case dismissed in 2009 after a continuance without a finding.
- In 2012 defendant petitioned to seal under G. L. c. 276, § 100C; Commonwealth objected that employment consequences stem from earlier charges.
- Court denied sealing; appealed to Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).
- 2010 CORI reforms broadened access to official CORI records and expanded sealing scope to aid reintegration, while preserving privacy protections.
- SJC revisits and rejigs the standard for discretionary sealing under § 100C, second par., to align with reforms and public interests.
- Court ultimately remands for dismissal as moot because record had been sealed administratively under § 100A; also remands to adopt a new good-cause standard and streamlined procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs discretionary sealing under § 100C, second par.? | Doe's balancing unduly burdens sealing; stricter due process. | Doe remains workable and protective of privacy. | Reject Doe; adopt a good-cause balancing standard. |
| Does the First Amendment require a presumption of access for records sealed under § 100C, second par.? | Public has strong First Amendment access to criminal records. | Public access may be curtailed when good cause exists. | No First Amendment presumption; rely on common-law good-cause standard. |
| What procedural framework should govern § 100C sealing petitions? | Two-stage process ensures public notice and full hearing. | One-stage process improves efficiency without harming access. | Adopt one-stage process; initial prima facie hearing may be omitted. |
| What factors comprise the good-cause balancing for sealing under § 100C? | Tight privacy protections needed to reduce ongoing stigma. | Public access interest remains strong and must be weighed. | Adopt a flexible, multi-factor balancing framework that weighs rehabilitation, time, impact on employment, and case specifics. |
| How should courts apply the new standard to determine whether good cause exists? | Burden on defendant to show clear harm from continued CORI exposure. | Rehabilitative evidence and time improve chances for sealing. | Courts may consider rehabilitation, time since disposition, and circumstances to find good cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142 (Mass. 1995) (adopted balancing test for § 100C sealing; heavy First Amendment burden previously)
- Pokaski v. Globe Newspaper Co., 868 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989) (First Circuit: sealing requires compelling governmental interest under First Amendment)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (two-step access analysis for public proceedings)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. District Attorney for the Middle Dist., 439 Mass. 374 (Mass. 2003) (reaffirmed privacy-public access balance in CORI context)
- Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442 Mass. 218 (Mass. 2004) (good-cause standard for impoundment/public access to judicial records)
- New England Internet Café, LLC v. Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business in Suffolk County, 462 Mass. 76 (Mass. 2012) (recognizes flexible good-cause framework and public access considerations)