Commonwealth v. K.W.
| Decision Date | 08 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | SJC-13153 |
| Citation | 193 N.E.3d 1069 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. K.W. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Pauline Quirion, Boston, for the petitioner.
Andrew S. Doherty, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Ruth A. Bourquin, Katharine Naples-Mitchell, & Joshua M. Daniels, for American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts Foundation, Inc., & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, & Georges, JJ.
K.W. filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 100K, in the Boston Municipal Court, seeking to have expunged two sets of criminal records stemming from separate arrests that had both occurred more than fifteen years earlier. Each set of records involved charges or convictions of possession of an amount of marijuana that since has been decriminalized. See, e.g., G. L. c. 94C, § 32L. A Boston Municipal Court judge denied both petitions on the ground that it was not "in the best interests of justice" to expunge the records. See G. L. c. 276, § 100K (b ). The judge subsequently denied K.W.’s motion for reconsideration. Because we conclude that the judge abused his discretion in concluding that, here, expungement was not "in the best interests of justice," the order denying K.W.’s petition for expungement must be reversed. More generally, we conclude that petitions for expungement that satisfy G. L. c. 276, § 100K (a ), are entitled to a strong presumption in favor of expungement, and petitions for expungement in such cases may be denied only if a significant countervailing concern is raised in opposition to the petition.1
1. Background. a. Facts. K.W. seeks to have expunged records related to two incidents, in 2003 and 2006, in which he was arrested for possession of marijuana. In each instance, the facts are undisputed.
In 2003, K.W. was a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for asserted traffic violations. During the stop, an officer pat frisked K.W. and found what the officer later described as "a small plastic bag of green vegetable-like substance believed to be marijuana." K.W. subsequently was charged with possession of a class D controlled substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 34. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop, and when no police officer appeared at the hearing on that motion, the case was dismissed.
In 2006, K.W. was stopped by a police officer for driving at approximately forty miles per hour in a residential area. During the stop, K.W. presented the officer with another person's driver's license, and was found with what the officer later described as "two plastic bags containing an undetermined amount of a vegetable matter believed to be a Class D substance, to wit, marijuana." K.W. later provided his actual name to the officer, and from this, police learned that he had been driving with a suspended driver's license.
K.W. was arraigned on six charges. To three of these charges -- one count of possession of a class D substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 34 ; refusal to identify himself, G. L. c. 90, § 25 ; and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, G. L. c. 90, § 23 -- K.W. pleaded guilty. The other three charges -–concealing identification, G. L. c. 90, § 23 ; use of a motor vehicle without authority, G. L. c. 90, § 24 (2) (a ) ; and the other count of possession of a class D substance, G. L. c. 94C, § 34 -- were dismissed at the Commonwealth's request. K.W. was sentenced to one year of probation, and later petitioned successfully for the sealing of all records pertaining to both the 2003 and 2006 incidents.2 b. The expungement statute. In 2018, Massachusetts enacted an omnibus package of criminal justice reforms entitled "An Act relative to criminal justice reform" (2018 criminal justice reform act or act). See St. 2018, c. 69. Among other changes, the act created two distinct pathways by which to seek expungement of two different types of criminal records. See Matter of Expungement, 489 Mass. 67, 69, 179 N.E.3d 1081 (2022). One pathway, typically referred to as "time-based" expungement, is available to those who committed certain low-level offenses before the age of twenty-one. See id. The pathway at issue here, generally known as "reason-based" expungement, id. at 71, 179 N.E.3d 1081, is set forth in G. L. c. 276, § 100K. That statute provides:
c. Procedural history. In 2019, K.W. filed a petition in the Boston Municipal Court seeking expungement of the marijuana-related records created in 2003 and 2006. Attached to the petition was an affidavit in which K.W. averred that the amount of marijuana at issue in both incidents was under one ounce. In the petition, K.W. described the "cloud of prosecution" that would continue to linger over him if those marijuana-related records were not expunged. The affidavit explained the steps K.W. was taking to secure new employment, and his involvement with his religious community. The affidavit also indicated that K.W. was then living with a friend and providing child care for his friend's children, and that he hoped to secure a home of his own to better facilitate spending time with his own children. Representatives from an organization with which K.W. had completed a job training program and the community with which K.W. worshiped both submitted letters commending K.W. for his efforts at self-improvement, attesting to his character, and supporting his attempt to expunge the marijuana-related criminal records.
A hearing on the petition took place in August of 2019. Present were K.W.’s attorney and an assistant district attorney. The assistant district attorney told the judge that the Commonwealth did not object to the petition for expungement. At the conclusion of the hearing, the following exchange took place:
In October of 2019, the judge denied the petition for expungement on the grounds that K.W. had not filed his petition correctly with the Commissioner of Probation (commissioner), and that "the Court does not find that it is in the interest of justice to destroy all records relating to the charges." In December of 2019, K.W. filed a motion for reconsideration. A few days later, the commissioner's deputy legal counsel submitted to the court a letter asserting that K.W.’s initial petition had been filed properly; because it sought a reason-based expungement, there was no need to submit it to the commissioner. In April of 2020, the same judge denied the motion for reconsideration. The judge's order stated, in full, "As previously noted the Court does not find that it is in the interest of justice to destroy all records relating to the charges." K.W. appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review.
2. Discussion. a. Standards of review. In reviewing a decision on a motion to expunge, we consider whether the judge abused his or her discretion. See Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296, 299, 14 N.E.3d 182 (2014). That determination is based in part on whether the judge made an error of law in interpreting the relevant statutes; we review the interpretation of a statute de novo. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Department of Agric. Resources, 477 Mass. 280, 285, 76 N.E.3d 227 (2017). "Where the words [of a statute] are ‘plain and unambiguous’ in their meaning, we view them as ‘conclusive as...
To continue reading
Request your trial