Hanlon v. Com.

Citation419 Mass. 1005,644 N.E.2d 1293
Decision Date27 January 1995
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Marshall E. Johnson, Plymouth (J. Albert Johnson, Boston, with him) for defendant.

John E. Bradley, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Commonwealth.


John R. Hanlon, whom we shall call the defendant, was tried before a jury in the Superior Court on two indictments charging him with forcible rape of a child under the age of sixteen, G.L. c. 265, § 22A (1992 ed.), and three indictments charging him with assault with intent to rape a child under the age of sixteen, G.L. c. 265, § 24B (1992 ed.). At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence, the trial judge granted the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty on one of the indictments charging assault with intent to rape a child under the age of sixteen. The remaining indictments were submitted to a jury for their consideration. The jury were unable to agree on a verdict on any charge, and a mistrial was declared. After the Commonwealth announced its intention to seek a retrial, the defendant moved to dismiss the indictments on the ground that the prosecution's evidence at the trial was legally insufficient to warrant his conviction on any charge. The judge assigned to preside at the retrial denied the motion to dismiss as well as the defendant's request for a stay of proceedings.

The defendant next sought relief before a single justice of this court by means of a petition under G.L. c. 211, § 3 (1992 ed.). The petition sought to stay proceedings in the Superior Court and the entry of findings of not guilty on all the indictments that the defendant would face at retrial. The petition was not accompanied by a trial transcript which was, and still is, unavailable. No effort was made by the defendant to prepare an adequate substitute for the trial transcript such as an agreement as to the material evidence or a statement of the evidence framed in accordance with Mass.R.A.P. 8(c), as amended, 378 Mass. 932 (1979). See Commonwealth v. Woods, 419 Mass. 366, 371, 645 N.E.2d 1153 (1995). The Commonwealth, however, furnished the single justice with a copy of the victim's testimony at the trial. After a hearing, the single justice denied the defendant's petition and request for a stay of proceedings. The defendant has appealed from the order of the single justice. We affirm.

A criminal defendant who raises a double jeopardy claim of substantial merit is entitled to review of the claim before he is retried. Costarelli v. Commonwealth, 374 Mass. 677, 680, 373 N.E.2d 1183 (1978). A request for review is made initially in the Superior Court and, if unsuccessful there, by means of a petition to a single justice pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 211, § 3. Id. Fadden v. Commonwealth, 376 Mass. 604, 606, 382 N.E.2d 1054 (1978).

"The question before us is whether the single justice acted properly in denying the defendant's petition. The answer...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Com. v. Hanlon, 96-P-1746
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 21 Mayo 1998
    ...for a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Hanlon v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 1005, 1006, 644 N.E.2d 1293 (1995). If the defendant believed at the time that the court had overlooked points of law or fact, he could have petitio......
  • Com. v. Robicheau
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 13 Septiembre 1995
    ...8(b)(3), as amended, 388 Mass. 1106 (1983), we shall not assume that he made a proper objection. Cf. Hanlon v. Commonwealth, 419 Mass. 1005, 1005-1006, 644 N.E.2d 1293 (1995). We note that the defendant does not claim in his brief that he made a proper objection. Therefore, we review for an......

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