Rosenberg v. Com.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1977
• Citation: 360 N.E.2d 333,372 Mass. 59
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 333

360 N.E.2d 333

372 Mass. 59

Murray L. ROSENBERG v. COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Nov. 5, 1976.

Decided Feb. 23, 1977.

Efrem A. Gordon, Springfield, for petitioner.

William W. Teahan, Jr., Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and QUIRICO, BRAUCHER, WILKINS and LIACOS, JJ.

HENNESSEY, Chief Justice.

The petitioner (hereinafter called the defendant), by a petition filed in the county court, seeks relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, the statute concerned with the general superintendence power of this court. A single justice of this court reserved and reported the matter without decision to the full court.

The only issue argued before us, and as to which the defendant seeks relief, relates to the order of a judge of the Superior Court, by which the judge vacated a previous order of his which had dismissed a complaint nd an indictment against the defendant.

The defendant was tried and convicted in the District Court of Springfield on a complaint, alleging attempted larceny over $100 and sentenced to three months in a house of correction on February 15, 1973. He appealed this conviction to the Superior Court. During the pendency of his appeal, the grand jury for Hampden County returned an indictment during the May, 1974, session, charging the defendant with concealment of personal property, knowing it to be leased, with intent to defraud, G.L. c. 266, § 86.

On July 15, 1974, the defendant filed in the Superior Court separate motions to dismiss the indictment and the complaint in accordance with the procedure authorized by this court in Commonwealth v. Brandano, 359 Mass. 332, 269 N.E.2d 84 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Hare, 361 Mass. 263, 280 N.E.2d 138 (1972). In support of his motions, the defendant filed an affidavit and amended affidavits, and the Commonwealth filed a counter affidavit. ¹ After hearing both parties on this matter, a Superior Court judge entered a memorandum and order on December 18, 1974, a dismissing all charges against the defendant. The judge found that the interests of justice required dismissal of the indictment and the complaint prior to trial because '(o)n the basis of all the facts that are presently known and that the Commonwealth is prepared to prove, the defendant would be entitled to a directed verdict at the close of the commonwealth's case.'

On May 12, 1975, following a hearing at the Commonwealth's request, the judge issued a 'Memorandum and Order Revoking Order of Dismissal' of the complaint and the indictment on the ground that since the two crimes charged were misdemeanors the Commonwealth would not be entitled to appeal from the dismissal pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 28E. The defendant duly excepted to the memorandum and order. In this court he seeks a judgment of dismissal of both the indictment and the complaint.

We conclude that relief is to be denied and that there must be further proceedings in the Superior Court. ² Our powers under G.L. c. 211, § 3, are to be sparingly exercised. Gilday v. Commonwealth, 360 Mass. 170, 171 274 N.E.2d 589 (1971). Our general supervisory power should rarely be used when some other practical remedy is available. Whitmarsh v. Commonwealth, 366 Mass. 212, 316 N.E.2d 610 (1974). In the instant cases, the defendant's rights, including any claim of error which he asserts by reason of the judge's order vacating the dismissal, may be fully protected through regular appellate review. There is in these cases no possibility of irremediable harm arising by reason of any failure to grant interlocutory relief. Compare Gilday, supra, with Corey v. Commonwealth, 364 Mass. 137, 301 N.E.2d 450 (1973), and Myers v. Commonwealth, 368 Mass. 843, 298 N.E.2d 819 (1973). See COSTARELLI V. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF BOSTON, --- MASS. ---, 323 N.E.2D 859 (1975)^A; Barber v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 236, 230 N.E.2d 817 (1967).

More particularly, we decline to grant relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3, because it is clear that the judge's original order of dismissal was predicated on his belief that the Commonwealth would have a right to appeal his order under G.L. c. 278, § 28E. Clearly the judge, in dismissing the complaint and the indictment, intended to act under the procedures established in Commonwealth v. Brandano, 359 Mass. 332, 337, 269 N.E.2d 84 (1971). That case specifically states that dismissal under the procedures outlined therein should provide a basis for an appeal by the Commonwealth. It is clear also that the judge vacated the order of dismissal only after he was informed that no appeal was available to the Commonwealth under G.L. c. 278, § 28E, since the cases here are concerned with misdemeanors and that statute provides appellate rights to the Commonwealth only in felony cases.

Finally, we comment on the defendant's contention that there is inequity in the fact that, for lack of appellate rights in the Commonwealth, the Brandano type of procedure may not be invoked in favor of a defendant accused of a misdemeanor. Therefore, we add, for the guidance of judges who might wish to invoke proceedings analoguous to Brandano in misdemeanor cases, that we consider it appropriate that they report any order from the dismissal of such a case for appellate review under G.L. c. 278, § 30A. ³ To avoid the serious constitutional question as to the judge's power, discussed in the Brandano case, supra, if he concludes that the 'interests of public justice' require dismissal, and the Commonwealth objects and requests that the case be reported, he must record the findings of fact and the reasons for his reporting the case. We do not preclude the possibility of such a report in the instant cases, in the discretion of a judge of the Superior Court, and provided there is assent and cooperation from the prosecution. ⁴

We emphasize that invoking the procedure rests in the discretion of the judge. No language in Brandano or in Commonwealth v. Hare, 361 Mass. 263, 280 N.E.2d 138 (1972), establishes new pre-trial rights in the defendants. Compare the rule that a judge cannot be required to direct a verdict on an opening by the prosecutor in a criminal case. Commonwealth v. Binnette, 351 Mass. 704, 221 N.E.2d 926 (1966); Commonwealth v. Hartford, 346 Mass. 482, 489, 194 N.E.2d 401 (196...