Gilday v. Com.
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Writing for the Court | Before TAURO; HENNESSEY |
| Citation | 274 N.E.2d 589,360 Mass. 170 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1971 |
| Parties | William M. GILDAY, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH (and a companion case 1 ). |
Page 589
v.
COMMONWEALTH (and a companion case 1).
Decided Oct. 27, 1971.
Page 590
Daniel F. Featherston, Jr., Boston, for William B. Gilday, Jr.
John T. Gaffney, Asst. Dist. Atty. (James M. McDonough, Legal Asst. Dist. Atty., with him) for the Commonwealth.
Robert M. Mardirosian, Watertown, for Stanley R. Bond, submitted a brief.
Before TAURO, C.J., and CUTTER, REARDON, QUIRICO and HENNESSEY, JJ.
HENNESSEY, Justice.
The petitioners (hereinafter called the [360 Mass. 171] defendants) await trial on indictments for murder and armed robbery. Their petitions in the county court under G.L. c. 211, § 3, as amended, were reserved and reported, without decision, to the full court. The defendants seek to vacate orders of a Superior Court judge, entered upon motions of the Commonwealth, that each defendant prior to trial disclose whether he intends to interpose (1) a defence of not guilty by reason of insanity, or (2) a defence of alibi, and if so, the names, addresses, and dates of birth of witnesses he intends to produce in support of such defence.
This matter is not within the scope of review under G.L. c. 278, § 28E (interlocutory appeals in criminal cases). The judge denied the defendants' motions that he report to this court his rulings. See G.L. c. 278, § 30A. He, however, deferred compliance with the orders until the defendants could obtain this court's decision.
Only in the most exceptional circumstances will we review interlocutory rulings in criminal cases under our general superintendence powers. See G.L. c. 211, § 3, as amended. We do so here because of important practical issues presented, and because ordering the disclosure of alibi
Page 591
witnesses, if error, might be irremediable, and possibly not curable even by a new trial since the defendants could not thereafter be placed in statu quo.We recognize the judge's reasons for entering the rulings. The defendants here are two among several defendants charged with serious crimes which have been the subject of extensive publicity in the news media. It is likely that the judge will sequester the jurors during trial. Severance of the trials of these two defendants has already been ordered. There is the prospect of two or more successive, lengthy trials, each with a locked up jury. If the prosecution is informed that a defendant intends to present alibi or insanity evidence only when or after the prosecution rests, the prosecution is likely to request a suspension of trial to gather evidence to rebut the defence, a task difficult at best upon such short notice. Clearly implied in the orders is the judge's desire to avoid unnecessary and foreseeable delays.
[360 Mass. 172] Federal constitutional questions are argued concerning which the pertinent decisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blaisdell v. Com.
...powers under G.L. c. 211, § 3, to review criminal cases "(o)nly in the most exceptional circumstances," Gilday v. Commonwealth, 360 Mass. 170, 171, 274 N.E.2d 589, 590 (1971), we do so here, as we did in Gilday, for the reasons therein stated. The issues here presented are similar in part t......
-
Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Operation Rescue
...Mass. at 680, 373 N.E.2d 1183. Commonwealth v. Dunigan, supra 384 Mass. at 5, 422 N.E.2d 1358, quoting Gilday v. Commonwealth, Page 1366 360 Mass. 170, 171, 274 N.E.2d 589 We have allowed review under c. 211, § 3, in cases where alternate appellate procedures were available to the petitioni......
-
Commonwealth v. Long, SJC-12694
...circumstances will we review interlocutory rulings in criminal cases under our general superintendence powers." Gilday v. Commonwealth, 360 Mass. 170, 171, 274 N.E.2d 589 (1971)."Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be ......
-
Borman v. Borman
...disclose under each statute. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Superior Court, 364 Mass. 317, 303 N.E.2d 847 (1973) (§ 4A); Gilday v. Commonwealth, 360 Mass. 170, 274 N.E.2d 589 (1971) (§ 3); Kennedy v. District Court of Dukes County, 356 Mass. 367, 252 N.E.2d 201 (1969) (§ 3). In each case cited, int......