89 N.E.3d 1123
Mass.2018Background
- Juvenile (Josh J.) was released on $1,000 bail under G. L. c. 276, § 58 after a delinquency complaint; judge advised bail could be revoked for new crimes while released.
- While on release, the juvenile was later charged with new offenses; the Commonwealth moved to revoke bail and the Juvenile Court revoked bail, setting a bail-review date ~90 days later.
- By the time of later proceedings, the new-charge cases had been resolved but the juvenile remained detained on the original charge; he sought to vacate the revocation and filed an emergency petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3.
- The single justice issued interim relief, then reserved and reported the legal question to the full SJC as the matter became moot but raised recurring issues.
- The legal question: whether, when a person released under § 58 is alleged to have committed a crime while on release, the Commonwealth may seek revocation under § 58 or § 58B and which statute’s detention period and standards apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 58 and § 58B create ambiguity requiring rule of lenity when revocation is sought after new crime on release | Juvenile: dual statutes are ambiguous; apply rule of lenity to favor § 58 (60-day limit) | Commonwealth: both statutes plainly apply; it may choose either; no ambiguity | Court: statutes are unambiguous and coexist; rule of lenity does not apply; Commonwealth may seek revocation under either statute but must meet that statute’s requirements |
| Whether revocation under § 58B (longer detention) violates substantive due process when applied to persons released under § 58 | Juvenile: longer detention under § 58B is punitive or not narrowly tailored | Commonwealth: § 58B is narrowly tailored to compelling interest in preventing crime by released defendants | Court: § 58B survives substantive due process as narrowly tailored to legitimate governmental interest (consistent with Paquette/Salerno) |
| Whether § 58B satisfies procedural due process when used after release under § 58 | Juvenile: heightened § 58B procedure may be inadequate or unjust when applied to § 58 releasees | Commonwealth: § 58B includes required hearing, probable cause standard, and a finding that no conditions will assure safety; plus prerelease warning under § 58 | Court: § 58B provides adequate procedural protections (probable cause hearing, burden to find no conditions will assure safety); revocation discretion remains judicial and constitutional |
| Mootness / relief available | Juvenile sought vacatur of revocation order | Commonwealth defended revocation | Court: case moot; reserves rule guidance for future cases and remands to single justice to dismiss petition as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Paquette v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 121 (SJC 2003) (upheld § 58 revocation scheme; prerelease warning and conditional liberty principles)
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (government may detain pretrial arrestees to prevent danger to community; narrow tailoring test)
- Aime v. Commonwealth, 414 Mass. 667 (SJC 1993) (discusses substantive and procedural due process limits on pretrial detention)
- Delaney v. Commonwealth, 415 Mass. 490 (SJC 1993) (mootness doctrine and when court will decide issues likely to recur)
- Pagan v. Commonwealth, 445 Mass. 315 (SJC 2005) (treatment of § 58 detention period and its validity)