Com. v. Murphy

Decision Date06 August 1996
Citation423 Mass. 1010,668 N.E.2d 349
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Christopher MURPHY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Judy Zeprun Kalman, Special Assistant District Attorney (Pamela L. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, with her) for Commonwealth.

William T. Walsh, Jr., Agawam, for defendant.

RESCRIPT.

At issue is who should pay the attorney's fees determined and approved pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(d), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). A Superior Court judge allowed the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, and the prosecutor (the district attorney for Hampden) applied to a single justice of this court for leave to appeal. Mass.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). The application was denied. 1 The defendant then moved for determination and approval of attorney's fees pursuant to rule 15(d). The single justice allowed the motion and ordered that "15 hours of time at $125 an hour, amounting to $1,925 ... be paid by [the] Commonwealth from the funds of the District Attorney for the County of Hampden." On reconsideration, the single justice affirmed. The prosecutor filed a notice of appeal. 2 We affirm the determination and approval of payment.

Rule 15(d) provides that, where the defendant is represented by private counsel and the Commonwealth seeks an interlocutory appeal pursuant to rule 15(a)(2), the Commonwealth shall pay the defendant's costs of appeal together with reasonable attorney's fees. We agree with the single justice that the appellate costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by a defendant represented by private counsel should be paid by the prosecution.

At the hearing before the single justice, the prosecutor argued that the single justice should order payment from the Commonwealth's general fund. That argument is without merit. The State Treasurer has no duty "to disburse any monies on behalf of the Commonwealth in the absence of an appropriation therefor." Bromfield v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 390 Mass. 665, 671, 459 N.E.2d 445 (1983).

The prosecutor also suggested that the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) be ordered to pay the defendant's costs and attorney's fees. That argument also is without merit. CPCS monies are appropriated for the costs of counsel appointed for indigent defendants. Last, the prosecutor contended that the judiciary should pay these costs. The single justice correctly noted that the costs of prosecution and defense appeals do not properly belong to the judiciary. In sum, the single justice determined that the prosecutor bears the costs of its appeals, and the fees mandated by rule 15(d) are one of those costs.

Last, the prosecutor argues that the single justice's order took its office by surprise. The prosecution asserts that it had no notice that it must pay these fees and no money was appropriated to meet these costs. Investigation by the court and counsel after oral argument revealed that the Administrative Office of the Trial Court (AOTC) has paid such bills in the past. 3 To the extent that AOTC has appropriated funds to pay these bills, it should continue to pay these claims. If AOTC funds are exhausted or if the Legislature has not appropriated funds to AOTC for this purpose, then prosecutors must bear these costs. Prosecutors should seek appropriated funds from the Legislature for this purpose if they intend to seek appeals under rule 15.

For the reasons stated, the order of the single justice is affirmed. It is, however, modified to order the AOTC to pay the fees ordered in this case. As modified, the judgment of the single justice is affirmed.

So ordered.

1 The defendant was represented in the Superior Court by counsel appointed through the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Augustine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 11, 2015
    ...representation to defend against a Commonwealth appeal. See Gonsalves, 432 Mass. at 617, 739 N.E.2d 1100 ; Commonwealth v. Murphy, 423 Mass. 1010, 1011 & n. 3, 668 N.E.2d 349 (1996). See also Commonwealth v. Rosario, 458 Mass. 1003, 1004 & n. 3, 934 N.E.2d 807 (2010) (awarding fees under ru......
  • Commonwealth v. Phinney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 28, 2007
    ...the Legislature has not appropriated funds to AOTC for this purpose, then prosecutors must bear these costs." Commonwealth v. Murphy, 423 Mass. 1010, 1011, 668 N.E.2d 349 (1996). See Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 441 Mass. 1007, 1007-1008, 804 N.E.2d 910 (2004); Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 432 ......
  • Commonwealth v. Ennis, SJC-08858 (MA 5/19/2004)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 19, 2004
    ...leave to file an interlocutory appeal, but also when the Commonwealth is denied such leave. See note 1 supra. See also Commonwealth v. Murphy, 423 Mass. 1010 (1996). Nevertheless, it is in the interests of the efficient administration of justice for a defendant to file a request for attorne......
  • Com. v. Gonsalves
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • August 15, 2002
    ...of the "important practical issues presented," we have decided to review the entire rule 15(d) order. Commonwealth v. Murphy, 423 Mass. 1010, 1010-1011 n. 2, 668 N.E.2d 349 (1996), quoting Commonwealth v. Dungan, 384 Mass. 1, 5, 422 N.E.2d 1358 We do not linger over the defendant's argument......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT