Commonwealth v. Forlizzi
Decision Date | 05 January 2016 |
Docket Number | SJC–11747. |
Citation | 42 N.E.3d 1131,473 Mass. 1017 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. David FORLIZZI. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Christopher Hurld, Assistant Attorney General (Peter A. Mullin, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the Commonwealth.
Robert M. Goldstein, Boston, for David Forlizzi.
Michael B. Roitman, Boston, for Fred Battista, was present but did not argue.
RESCRIPT.
The Commonwealth appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying its petition for relief, pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3
, from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court. We affirm.
In the underlying Superior Court case, the respondent, David Forlizzi, sought and obtained an order requiring the Commonwealth to disclose whether a witness cooperating against him previously has served as a confidential informant or cooperating witness. The Superior Court judge concluded that prior cooperation by the witness could be relevant to demonstrating the witness's bias or hope of benefit or reward. The single justice considered the judge's order and held that Concluding that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that relief was warranted, the single justice denied the petition.
This court (citations omitted). Commonwealth v.
Cook,
380 Mass. 314, 319–320, 403 N.E.2d 363 (1980). See Commonwealth v. Richardson, 454 Mass. 1005, 1005–1006, 907 N.E.2d 642 (2009). Although exceptional circumstances sometimes have been demonstrated in cases involving the disclosure of information relating to confidential informants and witnesses, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jordan, 464 Mass. 1004, 980 N.E.2d 454 (2012) ( ), this is not such a case. We employ our power of superintendence sparingly and “[n]o party, including the Commonwealth, should expect that the court will exercise its extraordinary power of general superintendence lightly.” Commonwealth v. Narea, 454 Mass. 1003, 1004 n. 1, 907 N.E.2d 644 (2009). In this case, the single justice properly could have denied review because the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate the presence of exceptional circumstances. See Commonwealth v. Charles, 466 Mass. 63, 88–89, 992 N.E.2d 999 (2013) ( ). On that limited basis, we affirm the single justice's denial of the petition. “The fact that the single justice considered the substantive merits of the interlocutory order [ ] does not require that we do likewise.” Forlizzi v. Commonwealth, 471 Mass. 1011, 1012, 28 N.E.3d 1166 (2015). See White v. Commonwealth, 439 Mass. 1017, 1017 n. 1, 792 N.E.2d 650 (2003).
The Commonwealth argues on appeal that disclosure of the identity of a confidential...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. D.M.
...shall explain, the Commonwealth has demonstrated that exceptional circumstances require our intervention. See Commonwealth v. Forlizzi, 473 Mass. 1017, 1018, 42 N.E.3d 1131 (2016) ; Commonwealth v. Tobias T., 462 Mass. 1001, 1001, 965 N.E.2d 813 (2012).This does not mean that a single justi......
-
Commonwealth v. D.M
...we shall explain, the Commonwealth has demonstrated that exceptional circumstances require our intervention. See Commonwealth v. Forlizzi, 473 Mass. 1017, 1018 (2016); Commonwealth v. Tobias T., 462 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2012). This does not mean that a single justice is required to review, pur......