Quinn v. Gjoni
89 Mass. App. Ct. 408
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Quinn obtained a G. L. c. 209A abuse prevention order against her ex‑boyfriend Gjoni after he posted personal information about her online and she received harassment and threats. The order included a "no posting" provision prohibiting Gjoni from posting information about Quinn or encouraging "hate mobs."
- An ex parte order issued Sept. 16, 2014; an evidentiary hearing to extend the order occurred Sept. 30, 2014. The judge at that hearing refused to allow cross‑examination and declined to rule on First Amendment objections, leaving that to appeal.
- Gjoni timely appealed, arguing principally that the no‑posting requirement violated his First Amendment rights as overbroad and an impermissible prior restraint.
- While the appeal was pending, Quinn moved to have the order vacated, asserting the order’s existence exacerbated the harassment she faced. On Aug. 28, 2015 a trial judge vacated/terminated the order and directed law enforcement to destroy records of it.
- The District Attorney later nolle prossed a related criminal prosecution for alleged violations of the no‑posting provision; Gjoni continued to press appellate First Amendment claims.
- The Appeals Court addressed (1) whether the trial court could modify/vacate a c. 209A order while an appeal was pending, and (2) whether the appeal was moot such that the court should decline to reach Gjoni’s constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Quinn's Argument | Gjoni's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court authority to modify/vacate a c. 209A order after appeal docketed | c. 209A allows modification "at any subsequent time," so trial court retained authority | Appeal docketed does not strip trial court of power under c. 209A | Trial court retains authority to modify/vacate c. 209A orders even after appeal is docketed (statutory exception to ordinary rule) |
| Mootness of appeal over First Amendment challenge to no‑posting provision | Case is moot because the order was vacated and records destroyed; no concrete interest remains | Claims remain justiciable because of past exposure and theoretical risk of criminal prosecution for violations | Appeal dismissed as moot; court declines to reach First Amendment merits |
| Whether theoretical criminal prosecution keeps constitutional issue alive | Vacatur and nolle prosequi eliminated practical risk; prospect of prosecution insufficient to overcome mootness | Ongoing (or possible) criminal exposure for actions while order was in effect preserves controversy | Theoretical or past prosecution risk does not prevent mootness here (nolle prosequi and vacatur removed concrete stake) |
| Procedural due process at evidentiary hearing (cross‑examination ban) | N/A (Quinn did not press merits) | Judge improperly denied meaningful opportunity to challenge evidence by forbidding cross‑examination | Even if error, relief sought is moot because order was vacated and records destroyed; appeal provides no live remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Ott v. Boston Edison Co., 413 Mass. 680 (mootness; courts should not decide purely academic appeals)
- Matter of Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342 (1st Cir.) (violation prosecutions may proceed even if order later held invalid; distinctions for "transparently invalid" prior restraints)
- Walker v. Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967) (prospect of collateral consequences and relationship between compliance and judicial review)
- Braun v. Braun, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 846 (trial court may proceed with modification proceedings during an outstanding appeal in certain contexts)
- Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592 (trial court must provide meaningful opportunity to challenge evidence in c. 209A proceedings)