Wing v. Commissioner of Probation
473 Mass. 368
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Defendant Elmer Wing charged in District Court with malicious destruction of property; during pretrial discovery he sought the complaining witness's full criminal record including entries sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100A.
- Probation produced unsealed entries but withheld entries sealed under § 100A; Wing moved to compel production and was denied by the judge.
- Wing petitioned for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3; a single justice reported the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court.
- Central statutory tension: mandatory discovery of witnesses' prior convictions under G. L. c. 218, § 26A and Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(a)(1)(D) versus the privacy protections and non‑disclosure mandate of the sealing statute G. L. c. 276, § 100A.
- Wing also argued a constitutional right (Confrontation Clause/impeachment) required disclosure of sealed records; the Commonwealth and probation department opposed disclosure based on the sealing statute and limits on impeachment rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory discovery statutes (G. L. c. 218, § 26A and Mass. R. Crim. P. 14) require production of criminal records sealed under G. L. c. 276, § 100A | Wing: § 26A and Rule 14 mandate production of a witness's prior convictions; silence regarding sealed records means no exception applies | Probation: § 100A expressly prohibits disclosure and requires reporting that no record exists; its specific prohibition controls over the general discovery statutes | The court held mandatory discovery does not extend to records sealed under § 100A; sealing statute prevails and bars disclosure |
| Whether Wing has a constitutional right to sealed-record disclosure for impeachment (Confrontation Clause/right to cross-examine) | Wing: Davis v. Alaska and related precedent require access to prior-records for impeachment and confrontation purposes | Probation: Confrontation/impeachment rights are limited; courts retain discretion to permit impeachment by prior convictions and § 100A limits access where only impeachment is sought | The court held Wing did not establish a constitutional right to the sealed records for impeachment; denial was within judicial discretion |
| Whether sealed-record disclosure is required to identify out-of-state convictions or support a bias/motive claim | Wing: Sealed entries may reveal aliases or out‑of‑state records that bear on bias and lead to further discovery | Probation: § 100A’s sealing procedure presumes absence of out‑of‑state convictions and the potential for speculative leads is insufficient | The court held speculative need for out‑of‑state leads or bias is not a constitutional basis to override § 100A |
| Whether Wing may access sealed records to assert a first-aggressor/self-defense theory | Wing: Access is needed to support an Adjutant-style first-aggressor defense | Probation: The offense charged (property damage) and record do not suggest a viable Adjutant self-defense showing; no factual basis shown | The court rejected the argument as undeveloped and inapplicable; no entitlement to sealed records for this purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (constitutional case recognizing right to cross-examine for bias but limited)
- Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014) (discusses the privacy purpose and scope of G. L. c. 276, § 100A)
- Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 368 Mass. 182 (1975) (trial court discretion limits right to impeach by prior convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 376 Mass. 920 (1978) (defendant must show how disclosed records would show bias; limits on juvenile/other records for impeachment)
- Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005) (first-aggressor/self-defense principle; factual predicates required)