Com. v. Gallarelli

• Decision Date: 11 May 1977
• Citation: 372 Mass. 573,362 N.E.2d 923
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 923

362 N.E.2d 923

372 Mass. 573

COMMONWEALTH v. Saverio GALLARELLI et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued March 8, 1977.

Decided May 11, 1977.

Charlotte Anne Perretta, Boston, for defendants.

Timothy P. O'Neill, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and BRAUCHER, KAPLAN, WILKINS and LIACOS, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Chief Justice.

The defendants Gallarelli and Charles Johnson were convicted after trial of an indictment which charged them with conspiring to influence a jury in violation of G.L. c. 268, § 13B. In these appeals the defendants raise the issue whether trial, conviction, and punishment of the defendants for contempt of court was a bar, on grounds of double jeopardy, against subsequent trial and conviction of the defendants on an indictment for conspiracy which was based on the same incident on which the contempt charge was premised.

A second issue argued by the defendants is whether evidence of the defendant Gallarelli's conviction on the contempt charge was properly admitted against him for impeachment purposes at the subsequent trial of the conspiracy indictment.

We conclude that there was no error and that the judgments shall be affirmed.

The defendants were tried in the Superior Court, Suffolk County, before a judge, without jury, on a criminal contempt complaint charging that the defendants 'did indirectly, wilfully endeavor by means of an offer and promise of something of value, to influence' one Patrick C. Flaherty, a juror in a trial in which the defendants were being prosecuted for disseminating obscene films. The complaint further alleged that their conduct interfered with, impeded, and obstructed the administration of justice, 'and constituted contempt of this Honorable Court.' The defendants were found guilty on March 3, 1975, and were each sentenced to a term of six months' incarceration in a house of correction.

On April 17, 1975, a Suffolk County grand jury returned an indictment which charged the defendants with conspiracy, together with one Thomas Bragdon, to influence a juror, one Patrick C. Flaherty, in violation of G.L. c. 268, § 13B. Subsequently the defendants were tried on this indictment before a jury in the Superior Court, Suffolk County. They were convicted and each was sentenced to serve a term of two and one-half years in a house of correction.

Before trial on the indictment the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy. This motion was denied and, after conviction and sentence, the defendants appealed.

The contempt complaint and the conspiracy indictment were based on the same incident. At each of the successive trials the Commonwealth relied on substantially the same evidence and witnesses.

The evidence at each trial was as follows. In January, 1975, Gallarelli and Johnson were defendants in an obscenity trial in the Superior Court, Suffolk County. On January 25, 1975, while the obscenity trial was in progress, the defendant Gallarelli talked by telephone with Thomas Bragdon, a gas company employee, and asked Bragdon if he knew Pat Flaherty who also worked for the gas company. Bragdon responded that he did not know Flaherty. Gallarelli then asked Bragdon to find out what type of a person Flaherty was, and gave Flaherty's address to Bragdon.

On January 28, 1975, Bragdon went to the Pru Cinema in Boston. Bragdon entered the Pru Cinema and asked for Gallarelli and Johnson. He then went outside, waited on the sidewalk, and was joined shortly by the defendant Johnson. Johnson asked Bragdon if he knew Flaherty and indicated that he wanted to discuss the obscenity trial in which he and Gallarelli were involved. Johnson told Bragdon that Flaherty had been approached previously and that he was going to go along with them. They merely wanted to let Flaherty 'know how to sit' and that he would be 'taken care of' and that Flaherty would receive $1,000. Johnson demonstrated to Bragdon how Flaherty was to fold his hands and how to sit. Johnson told Bragdon that this would inform the defendants that there would be either a hung jury or a not guilty verdict.

Then Gallarelli came out of the Pru Cinema and joined Bragdon and Johnson. Bragdon told Gallarelli that he did not know Flaherty. Gallarelli replied that Flaherty was involved in the obscene movie case, that he had already been approached, and that they wanted Bragdon to let him know how to sit so that they would know if he was with them. Gallarelli demonstrated to Bragdon how he wanted Flaherty to sit. Gallarelli told Bragdon that they would give Flaherty $1,000. Gallarelli reinformed Bragdon of Flaherty's address.

Later the same evening, Bragdon went to the residence of the juror Flaherty. When Flaherty came to the door of his home, Bragdon introduced himself and told him that he had a message from Jack. Flaherty asked who Jack was. Bragdon gave Flaherty the message on how to sit and that he would be taken care of if it was a hung jury or a not guilty. Flaherty asked Bragdon to leave and he did.

1. The Commonwealth argues that Dolan v. Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 325, 23 N.E.2d 904 (1939), is dispositive of the double jeopardy issue here. In the Dolan case, at 344, 23 N.E.2d 904, this court held that a punishment for contempt does not bar a prosecution for a crime based on the same act. See also Berlandi v. Commonwealth, 314 Mass. 424, 441, 50 N.E.2d 210 (1943); Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125, 151--152, 55 S.Ct. 375, 79 L.Ed. 802 (1935). The defendants urge that the Dolan case not be followed because the reasoning and the precedents relied on by the Dolan court have since been invalidated by opinions of the United States Supreme Court. They argue that the historical basis on which Dolan rested was that criminal contempt is sui generis, and constitutional guaranties, including that of double jeopardy, were of no applicability. On the contrary, they say, the application of constitutional rights to criminal contempt proceedings has been so continuous and consistent that these proceedings are now conducted as criminal trials. See, e.g., Groppi v. Leslie, 404 U.S. 496, 92 S.Ct. 582, 30 L.Ed.2d 632 (1972); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971).

Even if we accept the defendants' premise that the reasoning of Dolan as to the double jeopardy issue is now suspect, the defendants cannot prevail as to this issue in the face of other Massachusetts precedents. Indeed, the application of these precedents to the instant case becomes clear when, as the defendants urge, we consider the contempt matter to be a criminal proceeding.

We first consider the Commonwealth's premise that we should treat the contempt case as a charge of substantive violation of G.L. c. 268, § 13B, and that we should take note that the other charge was for conspiracy to violate the same statute. Persons may be prosecuted both for conspiracy to commit an illegal act and for the illegal act, and such prosecutions are not barred on prior jeopardy grounds. Commonwealth v. French, 357 Mass. 356, 393, 259 N.E.2d 195 (1970), judgments vacated as to death penalty sub nom. Limone v. Massachusetts, 408 U.S. 936, 92 S.Ct. 2848, 33 L.Ed.2d 754 (1972). Commonwealth v. Stasiun, 349 Mass. 38, 43--44, 206 N.E.2d 672 (1965). The only inhibition on such dual prosecution is that found in G.L. c. 278, § 2A, which prohibits the simultaneous trial of the conspiracy charge and the substantive offense. Thus the Commonwealth argues convincingly that the defendants may be prosecuted for both conspiracy and contempt of court. It is not significant that, in proving the conspiracy, the Commonwealth also presented evidence of overt acts by each of the defendants which tended to prove the substantive offense. That proof was admissible to show the character of the conspiracy (Commonwealth v. Favulli, 352 Mass. 95, 115, 224 N.E.2d 422 (1967)) but was not a necessary element to prove the indictment.

Again, treating the two cases, as the defendants urge, as criminal charges, the defendants fail in their argument as tested by a long-standing Massachusetts rule. This rule states: 'A single act may be an offence against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.' Kuklis v. Commonwealth, 361 Mass. 302, 306, 280 N.E.2d 155, 158 (1972), quoting from Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871). ¹ As to the conspiracy indictment in the instant case, the Commonwealth was required to prove an unlawful agreement (Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Metc. 111, 125 (1842)) which it was not required to show in the contempt case. On the other hand, to prove the contempt, the Commonwealth had to prove a course of conduct tending to interfere with, impede, and obstruct the proper administration of justice (Dolan v. Commonwealth, 304 Mass. 325, 340, 23 N.E.2d 904 (1939)) which was no part of the necessary proof as to the conspiracy indictment.

The defendants, referring to the rule set out in the Kuklis case as the 'same evidence test,' a descriptive phrase commonly used for this rule in other jurisdictions, urge that this court should, for the first time in this Commonwealth, apply a 'same transaction' rule. Such a rule would require that all charges arising out of the same incident or transaction be presented and prosecuted together. The argument is that the 'same evidence' test permits multiple prosecutions where a single transaction is divisible into discrete crimes. See the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 448--460, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970), which contends that the 'same transaction' test should be constitutionally required as supportive of the double jeopardy principle. See also the dissenting opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Burger, in the Ashe...