Dell'Isola v. State Bd. of Ret. Another .
90 N.E.3d 784
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Michael Dell'Isola, a longtime Middlesex County correction officer/sergeant, was convicted by a jury in 2012 of possession of cocaine after meeting an undercover trooper who posed as an associate of an inmate he had supervised.
- Before the narcotics meeting, Dell'Isola had communicated with an inmate (“George”) and the inmate’s family; Dell'Isola accepted $1,000 from the inmate’s mother and later expected money and cocaine from a person represented as acting for the inmate.
- The State Board of Retirement held an administrative hearing, admitted a postarrest interview transcript and arrest report, and found Dell'Isola’s possession was the result of arrangements tied to his relationship with the inmate.
- The board concluded Dell'Isola forfeited his pension under G. L. c. 32, § 15(4) (forfeiture after conviction for offenses involving violation of laws applicable to one’s office/position).
- A Boston Municipal Court judge affirmed the board; the Superior Court reversed on certiorari review; the Appeals Court reversed the Superior Court, finding a direct factual link and remanding for consideration of an Eighth Amendment excessive-fines claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board could rely on postarrest interview and arrest report at pension hearing | Dell'Isola: exhibits were hearsay and not part of criminal trial record, so unreliable | Board: administrative hearings may consider reliable hearsay with indicia of reliability | Held: admissible; exhibits had certification, consistency, and reliability; properly weighed |
| Whether the board may consider facts beyond those the jury considered | Dell'Isola: board limited to facts the jury relied on; cannot base forfeiture on uncharged conduct | Board: may consider reliable evidence bearing on nexus between crime and position | Held: board may consider additional reliable evidence; Scully not to the contrary |
| Whether Dell'Isola's conviction has a direct factual link to his position under G. L. c.32, §15(4) | Dell'Isola: transaction occurred off duty, inmate was not under his supervision at the time, and any drug deal was with the cousin only | Board: possession resulted from communications and arrangements tied to the inmate relationship arising from employment | Held: direct factual link exists; forfeiture mandated because possession was inextricably intertwined with his role as correction officer |
| Whether court should remit decision or address Eighth Amendment challenge | Dell'Isola: pension forfeiture is an excessive fine | Board: (not resolved on merits) | Held: remanded for consideration of Eighth Amendment claim after finding forfeiture appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State Bd. of Retirement v. Finneran, 476 Mass. 714 (2017) (describes direct factual and legal nexus required for §15(4) forfeiture)
- Scully v. Retirement Bd. of Beverly, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 538 (2011) (discusses limits on relying on unconvicted conduct and reliability of evidence)
- Durkin v. Boston Retirement Bd., 83 Mass. App. Ct. 116 (2013) (clarifies that nexus need not involve crime committed at work but must be connected to position)
- Gaffney v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 423 Mass. 1 (1996) (example of direct factual link where employee stole from municipality in connection with official role)
- Maher v. Justices of Quincy Div. of Dist. Ct. Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 612 (2006) (illustrates forfeiture where employee used position to facilitate crime)