Vizcaino v. Commonwealth
967 N.E.2d 1109
Mass.2012Background
- Rule 43 narrowly defines when summary contempt may be punished and requires contemporaneous judgment and due process; civil contempt can be used to coerce compliance, while criminal contempt is punitive.
- Vizcaino was immune and refused to testify at a murder trial; he was held in civil contempt on May 4 and May 12, with May 12 also containing a statement that he had committed summary contempt, but no criminal contempt judgment was entered.
- Trial concluded May 24; on May 28 the court treated the matter as potentially exceeding three months and referred for Rule 44 nonsummary prosecution; an indictment for nonsummary contempt followed.
- Defendant argued double jeopardy because he allegedly was convicted of summary contempt on May 12; the trial judge did not simultaneously enter a criminal contempt judgment or provide a summary opportunity.
- Court held no summary contempt conviction occurred due to failure to enter a contemporaneous judgment and provide a summary opportunity; thus jeopardy did not terminate and the matter proceeded under Rule 44 nonsummary contempt; remanded for dismissal/entry of denial of petition.
- Civil contempt is distinct and does not bar later criminal contempt proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether May 12 proceedings yielded a valid summary contempt conviction | Vizcaino (Commonwealth) | Vizcaino | No valid summary contempt conviction due to missing contemporaneous judgment and hearing specifics. |
| Whether the failure to enter a contemporaneous judgment converted to nonsummary contempt | Commonwealth | Vizcaino | Yes; proceeding treated as Rule 44 nonsummary contempt. |
| Whether double jeopardy bars later nonsummary contempt prosecution | Commonwealth | Vizcaino | No double jeopardy bar; jeopardy never terminated as summary contempt conviction was not valid. |
| Whether the judge’s May 28 conduct complied with Rule 43’s requirements or invoked Rule 44 | Commonwealth | Vizcaino | Proceeding under Rule 44; not a valid summary contempt conviction. |
| Impact of prior civil contempt on later criminal contempt prosecution | Commonwealth | Vizcaino | Civil contempt does not bar later criminal contempt; different aims and procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sussman v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. 692 (Mass. 1978) (warning requirement; contemporaneous action for summary contempt)
- Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1952) (necessity of immediate punishment in summary contempt)
- Commonwealth v. Corsetti, 387 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1982) (summary contempt narrowly construed; cautionary guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Segal, 401 Mass. 95 (Mass. 1987) (lack of signed judgment; summary opportunity requirement)
- Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1984) (continuing jeopardy in two-tier system; deference to finality)
- Lydon, Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 U.S. 618 (U.S. 1976) (de novo review and continuing jeopardy concepts)
- Love v. Commonwealth, 452 Mass. 498 (Mass. 2008) (jeopardy analysis based on proceedings substance, not labels)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (double jeopardy open question on summary contempt)
- Wright & Welling (cited in notes), 3A Wright & S. N. Welling, Federal Practice and Procedure § 707 (2010) (treatment of summary contempt under Federal rule)