Opinion
No. 11–P–2077.
2014-01-10
COMMONWEALTH v. L.N.
G.L. c. 276, § 100C, as amended through St.1984, c. 123. The statutory language unambiguously states that the court shall seal the records of a dismissal if substantial justice would be served. There is nothing in the plain language that distinguishes a prearraingment dismissal from a postarraignment dismissal, and there is nothing that preserves expungement as a potential remedy. See Commonwealth v. Gavin G., 437 Mass. 470, 482, 772 N.E.2d 1067 (2002) (“Conspicuously absent from [the] entire legislative scheme governing court and probation records ... is any suggestion that the Legislature intended such records be destroyed”). Moreover, the first paragraph of G.L. c. 276, § 100C, which requires the sealing of records where a grand jury returns a no bill, further supports this reading of the statute. The nature of the indictment process is such that it is possible for a grand jury to return a no bill without the accused even being aware of potential criminal charges against him, let alone without being subject to arraignment. Yet a court would be powerless to order expungement of a no bill because the plain language of the statute stipulates sealing as the remedy.