Commonwealth v. Washington W., 967 N.E.2d 615

Juvenile has Asperger’s Syndrome; complainant also has Asperger’s.
Complainant disclosed acts initiated by juvenile leading to police involvement; SAIN interview conducted.
Two delinquency charges for rape of a child and two for indecent assault filed in 2007-2008.
Discovery orders required Commonwealth to produce statistical data on youth prosecutions; discovery ultimately broadened by Bernardo B. and Washington W. decisions.
Commonwealth indicted juvenile as a youthful offender for the same two incidents; judge dismissed those indictments without prejudice in July 2010 for lack of sufficient grand jury evidence.
Prosecutor repeatedly violated discovery orders by delaying or refusing to provide requested statistical data; juvenile sought dismissal with prejudice for selective-prosecution prejudice; judge granted with prejudice dismissal in October 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grand jury evidence supported youthful offender indictment.	Commonwealth: evidence suffices to show serious bodily harm threat.	Juvenile: insufficient for youthful offender predicates; need serious bodily harm element.	Indictments not properly supported; but the issue is resolved later by prejudice analysis.
Whether withholding exculpatory SAIN evidence tainted grand jury proceedings.	Commonwealth possessed exculpatory material not disclosed.	Prosecutor not required to reveal all exculpatory data to grand jury.	Yes, withheld evidence tainted proceedings; indictments dismissed without prejudice.
Whether the Commonwealth violated discovery orders by refusing statistical data.	Discovery order required data; noncompliance persisted.	Indictments dismissed would moot discovery obligations.	Violation was deliberate and repetitive; sanctions appropriate.
Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper to cure prejudice from discovery violations.	Dismissal with prejudice unnecessary and harsh.	Necessary to cure prejudice and deter misconduct.	Yes, dismissal with prejudice affirmed to protect fair trial rights.

Commonwealth v. McGahee, 393 Mass. 743 (Mass. 1985) (grand jury may rely on hearsay for probable cause; exculpatory evidence duties described)
Commonwealth v. O’Dell, 392 Mass. 445 (Mass. 1984) (prosecutor must furnish exculpatory information that would undermine credibility of key evidence)
Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 398 Mass. 615 (Mass. 1986) (grand jury must be told of known exculpatory evidence that would undermine credibility of important witness)
Commonwealth v. Quincy Q., 434 Mass. 859 (Mass. 2001) (whether evidence supports youthful offender predicates when no 269 violations or prior DYS that would show serious harm)
Commonwealth v. Clint C., 430 Mass. 219 (Mass. 1999) (penetration plus factors may justify youthful offender indictment in certain contexts)
Commonwealth v. Washington W., 457 Mass. 140 (Mass. 2010) (discovery order on statistical data; selective prosecution issue raised)
Commonwealth v. Cronk, 396 Mass. 194 (Mass. 1985) (trial judge may continue to act on motions before appeal is entered; jurisdiction rules)