Gangi v. Commonwealth
462 Mass. 158
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Gangi is subject to civil commitment proceedings under G. L. c. 123A, § 12 (b) for alleged sexual dangerousness.
- Sixty-day deadline in § 13 (a) governs commitment evaluation period and is mandatory to protect liberty interests.
- Probable cause was found January 7, 2011, but the petition for trial was not filed until after the deadline.
- Examiners’ reports were not filed by the forty-five day deadline; the clerk’s failure to docket probable cause compounded delays.
- Gangi was confined beyond the sixty-day limit (sixteen days excess) while the petition for trial was delayed.
- A motion to dismiss the petition was granted by the single justice and then reversed; the court ultimately vacates relief denial and grants relief for Gangi.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a sixteen-day overrun of the sixty-day deadline requires dismissal | Commonwealth asserts no dismissal due to extraordinary circumstances; delays excused. | Gangi argues statutory deadline is mandatory; any delay requires dismissal absent extraordinary circumstances. | Dismissal required; no extraordinary circumstances justify sixteen-day overrun. |
| Whether clerk error excused the delay | Commonwealth relies on clerk error to excuse delay. | Gangi contends clerk error does not relieve Commonwealth of duty; cannot excuse delay. | Clerk error does not justify delay; dismissal affirmed. |
| Who bears responsibility to ensure timely examiner reports | Commonwealth argues treatment center timely examinations; court staff should not penalize due to clerk. | Gangi contends Commonwealth must ensure timely examinations; bar/ Commonwealth bears responsibility. | Commonwealth bears responsibility; failure to timely obtain examiner reports does not excuse delay. |
| Whether law-of-the-case or judicial error can excuse the delay | Commonwealth asserts later orders reset clocks and law-of-the-case may apply. | Gangi argues law-of-the-case doctrine could excuse, but it does not apply to erroneous earlier rulings. | Law-of-the-case does not apply; error in resetting the clock does not excuse delay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gross, 447 Mass. 691 (2006) (sixty-day deadline mandatory; excess requires dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Parra, 445 Mass. 262 (2005) (extraordinary circumstances may justify very brief delay; otherwise dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 439 Mass. 826 (2003) (examiner report delay without petition for trial beyond sixty days can be harmless)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 435 Mass. 527 (2001) (clerk error cannot excuse sixty-day violation; protections required)
- Commonwealth v. Blake, 454 Mass. 267 (2009) (expedited pace in chapter 123A proceedings; liberty interests at stake)
- Commonwealth v. DeBella, 442 Mass. 683 (2004) (importing §13 (a) constraints into §14 (a) is inappropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 31 (2009) (§14 (a) good cause/justice delays do not justify extending §13 (a) deadline)
- Brown v. Quinn, 406 Mass. 641 (1990) (bar/clerical error not a basis for excusing neglect)