Johnson v. Com.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1991
• Citation: 409 Mass. 712,569 N.E.2d 790
• Parties: Dante L. JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH et al. 1 (and a companion case 2 ).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 790

569 N.E.2d 790

409 Mass. 712

Dante L. JOHNSON v. COMMONWEALTH et al. ¹ (and a companion case²).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued Dec. 3, 1990.

Decided April 9, 1991.

Matthew H. Feinberg, Matthew A. Kamholtz, Boston, with him, for Dante L. Johnson.

Marina Medvedev, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brian Carney, Asst. Dist. Atty., with her, for Com.

Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, O'CONNOR and GREANEY, JJ.

LIACOS, Chief Justice.

This is a consolidated appeal by a defendant found delinquent by a jury in the appellate session of the Juvenile Court. The defendant appeals from his conviction and the decision of a single justice of this court relating to his petition for relief pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3 (1988 ed.). In his petition, the defendant challenges the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court to accept a verdict after the defendant attained the age of eighteen and to commit the defendant to the custody of the Department of Youth Services (DYS).

In Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 406 Mass. 31, 545 N.E.2d 1164 (1989), we held that the language of G.L. c. 119, § 72 (1988 ed.), set out in the margin, ³ required the dismissal of a case where a juvenile allegedly committed a crime prior to his seventeenth birthday and was apprehended before the age of eighteen, but whose case was not disposed of before the juvenile attained his eighteenth birthday. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, supra at 34-35, 545 N.E.2d 1164. We noted, in dictum, that the circumstances might be different if a defendant's own actions cause delay in bringing a proceeding to its conclusion. Id. at 35 n. 7, 545 N.E.2d 1164. The case before us presents for decision that particular issue, whether the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court may extend beyond the date of the defendant's eighteenth birthday where the delay in juvenile proceedings is due to efforts by the defendant to evade apprehension. We hold that the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court does not encompass the circumstances of this case.

We summarize briefly the facts and procedural history of this case. On July 11, 1988, a warrant was issued for the defendant's arrest on charges of murder and assault with intent to murder relating to an incident which occurred two days earlier. ⁴ Soon thereafter the defendant left the jurisdiction. On October 11, 1989, fifteen months after the warrant was issued and 100 days before his eighteenth birthday, the defendant surrendered himself to the authorities. On the same day, the Commonwealth filed a motion for a transfer hearing pursuant to G.L. c. 119, § 61 (1988 ed.), seeking to have the juvenile complaint dismissed and a criminal complaint issued, in order to try the defendant as an adult. ⁵ Following a finding of probable cause, a judge at the transfer hearing determined that the defendant presented a significant danger to the public, but found that he was amenable to rehabilitation. Transfer was denied.

Trial counsel was appointed to represent the defendant on January 9, 1990, seven days prior to the trial. On the fourth day of trial, Friday, January 19, 1990, the judge charged the jury, and the jury began their deliberations. Unable to reach a verdict, the jury recessed for the weekend. The same day, the judge issued a written interlocutory order continuing the court's jurisdiction to proceed with the trial and to commit the juvenile to DYS if the jury found him delinquent, "notwithstanding the provisions of § 72 of chapter 119 of the General Laws" (emphasis in original). In his findings of fact, the trial judge also noted that the defendant had left "this jurisdiction and lived in another city" for a period of time, intentionally to avoid apprehension and prosecution. The next day the defendant attained his eighteenth birthday.

On the following Monday, January 22, 1990, the defendant filed a petition for relief in the county court pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3, arguing that, because the Juvenile Court no longer had jurisdiction over him, the case should be dismissed and the defendant released. A single justice permitted the trial to proceed, inferring that a tolling provision might be read into the statute to extend the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction to the extent the delay was caused by the defendant. The single justice retained jurisdiction over the petition. The jury found the defendant not guilty of delinquency by reason of murder but found him delinquent by reason of assault with intent to kill. He was ordered committed to DYS for an indeterminate period of time.

The single justice ordered a hearing before another judge of the Juvenile Court for a second determination regarding the delay in the prosecution of the defendant's case and stayed the order committing the defendant to DYS. Following a hearing, that judge found that the defendant had acted intentionally to avoid apprehension and to delay proceedings. The judge ordered the defendant committed to DYS and stayed the order pending notification by this court. The defendant appealed to this court and sought a stay of execution of his sentence pending appeal. We granted the appeal but denied the stay of execution of the sentence.

During the pendency of this appeal, DYS applied for a review of the order extending commitment of the defendant beyond the age of eighteen, pursuant to G.L. c. 120, § 17 (1988 ed.). The extension was denied by the Juvenile Court, and the defendant was ordered released. ⁶

"It is a first principle that the jurisdictions of the several lower courts of this Commonwealth, and therefore their powers, are limited to those granted by the Constitution of the Commonwealth or by the Legislature. Mountfort v. Hall, 1 Mass. 443, 457 (1805). Such grants must either be articulated expressly or be capable of being deduced by 'necessary and inevitable' implication. Id. See Crocker v. Superior Court, 208 Mass. 162, 171, 94 N.E. 369 (1911) (or by 'fair implication')." (Footnote omitted.) Police Comm'r of Boston v. Municipal Court of the Dorchester Dist., 374 Mass. 640, 662-663, 374 N.E.2d 272 (1978).

In G.L. c. 119, § 72, effective during the period relevant to this case, the Legislature articulated expressly the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction: "Nothing herein shall authorize the commitment of a child to the department of youth services after he has attained his eighteenth birthday, or give any court in its juvenile session any power or authority over a child after he has attained his eighteenth birthday." Contrary to the rulings below purporting to read into § 72 a tolling provision that would extend the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction, no court may expand this express limitation of jurisdiction prescribed by the Legislature. Nor may we infer an intent by the Legislature to permit an extension of jurisdiction by resort to the concept of tolling. In D'Urbano v. Commonwealth, 345 Mass. 466, 187 N.E.2d 831 (1963), we noted that then existing legislation pertaining to juveniles had "no provision for the case of a person apprehended while a juvenile and not validly proceeded against until after he became an adult." Id. at 471 n. 7, 187 N.E.2d 831. Section 72A, subsequently inserted into G.L. c. 119 by the Legislature, ignored the issue of juvenile procedures which are not completed before the individual turns eighteen years old. ⁷ See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 406 Mass. 31, 33, 545 N.E.2d 1164 (1989). Failure of the Legislature to address this issue, while enacting § 72A to deal with juvenile offenders apprehended after their eighteenth birthday, indicated a clear intent not to extend Juvenile Court jurisdiction to individuals whose proceedings are not completed by the time they attain their eighteenth birthday. ⁸ See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, supra at 33-34, 545 N.E.2d 1164. See also Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 251, 253, 450 N.E.2d 1089 (1983).

We note that, where a judge of the Juvenile Court is faced with facts similar to those in this case, a juvenile's intentional evasion of the jurisdiction of the court should be considered among the relevant factors for determining whether that defendant should be transferred to the appropriate court with jurisdiction over adults. G.L. c. 119, § 61. ⁹ The delaying tactics of a juvenile may shorten the potential rehabilitative period so much as to limit severely the likelihood of the juvenile's rehabilitation. However, flaws in the...