Com. v. Juvenile (No. 1)
Decision Date | 10 June 1976 |
Citation | 370 Mass. 450,348 N.E.2d 760 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. A JUVENILE (NO. 1). |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John A. Tierney, Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
James W. Lawson, Wellesley, for defendant.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, BRAUCHER and KAPLAN, JJ.
This case arises as a result of our decision in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 365 Mass. 421, 313 N.E.2d 120 (1974), wherein this court held that if the defendant filed a motion for a new trial within thirty days, the Superior Court was to hold a hearing on the motion, limited to 'the single issue of whether the judge will allow, as a matter of discretion, consistent with our holdings, the defendant's motion for a polygraph test.' Id at 433, 313 N.E.2d at 128. Following our decision in A Juvenile, the defendant timely moved for a new trial, whereupon the judge, without a hearing on the motion and prior to a decision, reported the case to this court for a determination of questions relating to the admissibility of the defendant's original polygraph test and to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.
The issues reported are as follows:
The facts pertinent to this case are as follows. On April 13, 1970, a complaint was issued in the juvenile session of the Fourth District Court of Bristol charging that the defendant was a delinquent child in that he did commit murder. After a hearing in the District Court, he was adjudged to be a delinquent child and was committed to the Department of Youth Services. On appeal to the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 119, § 56, the defendant was adjudicated a delinquent by reason of murder in the second degree. Subsequently, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court, set aside the verdict, and remanded the case for a new trial. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 361 Mass. 214, 280 N.E.2d 144 (1972). The defendant was again tried in Superior Court and found delinquent by reason of manslaughter on March 14, 1973.
The defendant appealed to this court again, and on June 12, 1974, the court issued its decision in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, supra. In that case the court considered the question of the admissibility of polygraph or 'lie detector' test results. The court, although not overruling its prior holding in Commonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 191 N.E.2d 479 (1963), concluded that 'if a defendant agrees in advance to the admission of the results of a polygraph test regardless of their outcome, the trial judge, after a close and searching inquiry into the qualifications of the examiner, the fitness of the defendant for such examination, and the methods utilized in conducting the tests, may, in the proper exercise of his discretion, admit the results, not as binding or conclusive evidence, but to be considered with all other evidence as to innocense or guilt.' 365 Mass. at 426, 313 N.E.2d 124. Accordingly, this court held that if the defendant filed a motion for a new trial within thirty days, the judge, after conducting a hearing, could allow the motion as a matter of discretion if the above conditions were satisfied. Id. at 440, 313 N.E.2d 120.
Following our decision in A Juvenile, the defendant moved for a new trial in the Superior Court. Because the defendant attained the age of eighteen on July 11, 1974, the judge below questioned, in view of G.L. c. 119, § 72, 1 the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to grant a new trial (question 1). In addition, the judge, observing that the defendant has completed the sentence imposed, raises the issue of whether this case is now moot (question 2). Aside from these questions relating to jurisdiction and mootness, the judge also seeks a determination as to the admissibility of the defendant's original polygraph test which was administered on May 26, 1970 (question 3). It is clear from the briefs and arguments that there is objection by the Commonwealth to the admission of the evidence. This inquiry arose, because, in the opinion of the judge, the defendant is no longer a fit subject for a polygraph examination. 2
First of all, addressing this third question only, we conclude that since it is evidence that the judge does not choose in his discretion to permit the introduction in evidence of a new polygraph examination because of the defendant's present unsuitability for such an examination, our decision in A Juvenile, by its narrow terms, precludes the allowance of a new trial.
Secondly, in answer to the third question, the results of the 1970 polygraph examination may not be admitted over the objection of the Commonwealth. It is clear from A Juvenile that the admissibility of polygraph evidence is to be 'limited to carefully defined circumstances designed to protect the proper and effective administration of criminal justice.' 365 Mass. at 425, 313 N.E.2d at 124. The circumstances enumerated by this court include only four instances, 3 all of which require that the defendant agree in advance to the admission of the results of the polygraph test irrespective of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Moore
...E, 381 N.E.2d 575 (1978); Commonwealth v. Vitello, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- F, 381 N.E.2d 582 (1978); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 1), 370 Mass. 450, 452-454, 348 N.E.2d 760 (1976); Commonwealth v. Howard, 367 Mass. 569, 570-573, 327 N.E.2d 736 (1975); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 365 Mas......
-
Com. v. Vitello
...1287, 1305); Commonwealth v. Graziano, 371 Mass. ---, 358 N.E.2d 776 (1976) (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1976) 2914); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 1), 370 Mass. ---, 348 N.E.2d 760 (1976) (Mass.Adv.Sh. (1976) 1507); Commonwealth v. Patterson, --- Mass.App. ---, --- - ---, 341 N.E.2d 287 (1976) (Mass.A......
-
Com. v. Chase
...of the results of a polygraph examination could have been admitted. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 1), --- Mass. ---, ---, --- l, 348 N.E.2d 760 (1976). Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 365 Mass. 421, 430--431, 313 N.E.2d 120 (1974). We have accepted the possibility of the admission of the resu......
-
Com. v. Stewart
...his examination before the motion for their admission was made, the results of this examination were not admissible. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile (No. 1), 370 Mass. ---, --- a, 348 N.E.2d 760 (1976); Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 365 Mass. 421, 431 n. 8, 313 N.E.2d 120 (1974); Commonwealth v. P......