Commesso v. Com.

• Decision Date: 29 December 1975
• Parties: Anthony COMMESSO v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 917

339 N.E.2d 917

369 Mass. 368

Anthony COMMESSO

v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Nov. 3, 1975.

Decided Dec. 29, 1975.

Joan C. Stanley, Boston, for plaintiff.

George G. Burke, Dist. Atty. and James Vogt, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before TAURO, C. J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, HENNESSEY and KAPLAN, JJ.

BRAUCHER, Justice.

Following a massive study starting in 1965, our Legislature enacted a series of statutes which became the bail reform act now found in G.L. 276, § 58, as appearing in St.1971, c. 473, § 1. St.1966, c. 681. St.1967, c. 109. St.1968, c. 127. St.1970, c. 499. See Spangenberg, Homans & Flaschner, Bail Reform in Massachusetts 1965-1967, 52 Mass.L.Q. 135 (1967); Note, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 1489 (1966); Note, 5 Pac.L.J. 675 (1974); Note, 7 Suffolk L.Rev. 66 (1972). In the present case, the first to reach us under those statutes, we uphold the decision of a single justice of this court denying a petition for reduction of bail. We also review the procedure to be followed in such cases.

We summarize the facts shown in the petition and supporting affidavit of counsel. The petitioner was charged with burglary while armed and assault on occupants, committed on December 11, 1974. He was arrested at his home on January 8, 1975, and was arraigned the next day in the District Court of East Norfolk. Bail was set at $2,000 with surety. On January 21 a petition for review of bail was denied without prejudice in the Superior Court. He remained in custody until January 24, when, at the request of the Commonwealth, the case was continued for the second time. Bail was then reduced to personal recognizance with 'probation officer surety,' and the petitioner was released from custody. Following two more continuances, the petitioner voluntarily appeared for the third time on March 6. Probable cause was then found, the petitioner was bound over for the grand jury, and bail was raised to $15,000 with surety. The District Court judge filed a form entitled, 'Court's Reasons for Bail in the Amount of $15,000'; he checked the item, 'Nature of the offense charged, such as its seriousness,' and added, under 'Further Specifications,' 'The defendant has a long serious record of criminal activity. The codefendant failed to show at the continued hearing on probable cause.' A petition for review of bail was denied in the Superior Court on March 7. A petition for reduction in bail was filed in the county court on April 4 and denied by a single justice of this court on April 9, and the petitioner appealed.

Additional facts rest largely on representations of counsel, unsworn or based on hearsay, but not disputed. We are told that the petitioner is twenty-five years old, has resided in Massachusetts since birth, and now resides in Hingham with his mother, father and sister. A copy of his court record, appended to his brief, shows sixteen charges apparently arising out of nine different incidents. Including one felony conviction in 1967, two distinct drug convictions, and convictions of attempted larceny and using an automobile without authority. In May, 1975, he was convicted of larceny over $100 and breaking and entering in the nighttime, on complaints prior to the present one. He had no new arrests and no defaults between January 24 and March 6, 1975. At the time of his arrest he was unemployed. On April 30, 1975, he paid a $755 premium with borrowed money, posted a $15,000 surety bond, and was released. He has since found a job.

The petitioner did not order a transcript of the proceedings before the single justice. The Commonwealth asserts in its brief that at the hearing before the single justice the prosecutor made the following representations. At the probable cause hearing on March 6, the petitioner and his codefendant sat together and talked freely to their attorney and each other. The victims of the burglary told how the defendants broke into their home and viciously attacked them with a knife and sledgehammer handle. This was the first opportunity the court had to hear the details of the crime and the first time the defendants heard the testimony of the victims. The court recessed for lunch, and the codefendant fled. After lunch the judge made the determinations now in issue.

1. Jurisdiction. The bail reform act was intended 'to establish the right of the accused, in most circumstances, to be admitted to bail upon personal recognizance without surety.' Commonwealth v. Roukous, --- Mass.App. ---, --- n.5, 313 N.E.2d 143 (1974). ^a See Matter of Troy, 364 Mass. 15, n. 10, 306 N.E.2d 203 (1973); Commonwealth v. Lombardo, --- Mass.App. ---, --- - ---, 313 N.E.2d 140 (1974); ^b K. Smith, Criminal Practice & Procedure §§ 412--417.30 (Supp.1975). To that end G.L. c. 276, § 58, third paragraph, provides: 'A prisoner aggrieved by the denial of a district court justice to admit him to bail on his personal recognizance without surety may petition the superior court for a review of the order of the recognizance . . ..' Before the 1971 revision, § 58 included the following as its last sentence: 'Any person aggrieved by a failure to comply with any of the requirements of this section may petition the supreme judicial court as provided in section three of chapter two hundred and eleven.' St.1970, c. 499, § 1. Pursuant to the power of 'general superintendence' provided for in G.L. c. 211, § 3, the single justice of this court regularly entertained petitions for review of bail determinations made in the Superior Court on review of denials under § 58.

The 1971 revision eliminated from § 58 the references to this court and to G.L. c. 211, § 3. Nevertheless, the single justice has continued, as in the present case, to entertain bail petitions after decision in the Superior Court. Although G.L. c. 276, § 57, authorizes a Justice of this court to admit a prisoner or witness to bail in the first instance, an application under that section will ordinarily be denied or transferred to the Superior Court under G.L. c. 211, § 4A, if the matter has not previously been acted on there. The same practice would ordinarily be followed in exercising the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus, preserved by G.L. c. 248, § 25. Cf. Belgard v. Morse, 2 Gray 406, 407 (1854). But G.L. c. 211, § 4A, as appearing in St.1972, c. 740, § 2, explicitly forbids transfer to any court but the Appeals Court of 'reductions of bail under section fifty-eight of chapter two hundred and seventy-six.' It thus seems clear that bail determinations by a single justice under § 58 continue to be authorized. Moreover, a demand for excessive bail would violate art. 26 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Massachusetts. Compare the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which has been assumed to have application to the States. See Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357, 365, 92 S.Ct. 479, 30 L.Ed.2d 502 (1971).

We therefore uphold the jurisdiction of the single justice to review bail determinations under § 58. The power preserved by G.L. c. 248, § 25, is not another remedy 'expressly' provided such as to preclude application of G.L. c. 211, § 3. Similarly, we think the full court has jurisdiction to review, on exceptions, report or appeal, questions of law arising in a bail determination by a single justice under § 58. G.L. c. 211, §§ 5, 6. Cf. Stranad v. Commonwealth, --- Mass. ---, 318 N.E.2d 617 (1974); ^c Commonwealth v. Baker, 343 Mass. 162, 163, 177 N.E.2d 783 (1961).

2. Scope of review. Under § 58, first paragraph, the District Court judge is to order release upon personal recognizance without surety unless he 'determines, in the exercise of his discretion, that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the prisoner before the court.' He is to take into account the various factors prescribed in the statute. If he finds that such a release will not give the necessary assurance, he may require bail in an amount set by him after consideration of the same factors. The determination of amount also requires the exercise of judgment and discretion, and the 'inevitable variations in result flowing from the exercise of judgment and discretion by independent judges do not, without more, constitute error of law reviewable by this court in any proceeding . . ..' Matter of Troy, 364 Mass. 15 --- - ---, 306 N.E.2d 203, 217 (1973).

A petition for review in the Superior Court, however, stands on a different footing. Under § 58, fourth paragraph, that court is to hear the petition 'in accordance with the standards set forth in the first paragraph' of that section, that is, according to the standards governing the District Court judge. We think that language, read in the light of the statutory purpose, requires the Superior Court judge to consider the matter anew and to exercise his own judgment and discretion. After the hearing, he is expressly authorized to 'order that the petitioner be released on bail on his personal recognizance without surety, or, in his discretion, to reasonably assure the effective administration of justice, make any other order of bail or recognizance or remand the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the process by which he was ordered committed by the district court' (emphasis supplied).

The statute is not explicit as to the role of the single justice. 'Relief in this type of case must be speedy if it is to be effective.' Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L.Ed. 3 (1951). Bail determinations must often be done in haste, 'without that full inquiry and consideration which the matter deserves.' Id. at 11, 72 S.Ct. at 7 (opinion by Jackson, J.). We therefore think that the single justice has the power to consider the matter anew, taking into account facts newly presented, and to exercise his own judgment and discretion without remanding the matter for reconsideration by the...