Opinion
No. 15–P–767.
05-24-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. Edwin VINALES.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The Commonwealth appeals from an order of a judge of the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court dismissing, without prejudice, a complaint charging the defendant, Edwin Vinales, with several drug-related crimes. We vacate the order of dismissal.
Distribution of a class A substance, subsequent offense, possession of a class A substance with the intent to distribute, related school zone violations, conspiracy to violate drug laws, and a violation of a municipal ordinance.
Background. The defendant was arraigned on June 16, 2014. At the next scheduled court date, July 14, 2014, the Commonwealth informed the judge that the drug certificates of analysis had been requested, on an expedited basis. The case was next heard on August 12, 2014, for a pretrial hearing, at which the judge signed an order to expedite the drug certificates and set the case for motions and trial on September 12, 2014. On September 3, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence.
On the scheduled trial date, the following exchange took place:
The Court: “What was the Commonwealth answering on the case that's marked for trial?”
Prosecutor: “Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, the Commonwealth is answering ready on the motions for both of those cases, but unfortunately not ready on the trial. Your Honor, the drugs in this case have been tested. I did receive the certificate of analysis two days ago and I provided it to my sisters today. Unfortunately at this point I haven't had the opportunity to get the lab materials on these cases. I'd respectfully request a further date, your Honor. We are ready on the motion today. These cases are not that old. I believe they were arraigned in June of this year.”
Defense: “Your Honor, I'm moving to dismiss on behalf of [the defendant].”
The Court: “Motion is allowed.”
A codefendant, Armand Elderkin, was also charged.
The docket reflects that the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, which the judge denied without a hearing. In the margin, the judge noted: “Defendant was held on $2000 cash bail. Motion to reduce bail had been denied.” The Commonwealth timely appealed.
The record does not explicitly indicate that the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, but the defendant concedes the point on appeal and we agree. See Commonwealth v. Joseph, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 516, 518 (1989).
The complaint charging Elderkin, the codefendant, also was dismissed. The Commonwealth also moved to reconsider as to his case, and the judge allowed the motion, citing Elderkin's reduced bail. Elderkin later pleaded guilty.
Discussion. “Dismissal of a criminal complaint is the most severe sanction that a court can impose to remedy misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth.... The burden is on a defendant to demonstrate why the dismissal of criminal charges is warranted.... The threshold to be crossed before dismissal is appropriate is high.” Commonwealth v. Butler, 87 Mass.App.Ct. 183, 186 (2015), quoting from Commonwealth v. Gardner, 467 Mass. 363, 368–369 (2014). We will uphold a judge's order to dismiss without prejudice unless there has been “an abuse of discretion.” Commonwealth v. Anderson, 402 Mass. 576, 579 (1988).
In Butler, a judge dismissed a criminal complaint, without prejudice, as a result of the Commonwealth's failure to timely provide discovery (drug certificates of analysis) to the defense. Following a detailed recitation of the existing case law, we vacated the dismissal on the ground that the prosecutor had not acted in a “cavalier” fashion, the defendant was not inconvenienced by the delay, and a mitigating reason existed for the delay. Commonwealth v. Butler, supra at 188–189. We also noted that the case had not yet reached the trial stage, and that the record was silent as to the two continuances that had occurred. Id . at 189. See and compare Commonwealth v. Gardner, 467 Mass, at 368–370 ; Commonwealth v. Jackson, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 521, 522–523 (1989). Contrast Commonwealth v. Anderson, supra at 579; Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 431 Mass. 501 (2000) ; Commonwealth v. Joseph, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 516, 518–519 (1989).
As in Butler, the circumstances here did not warrant dismissal of the complaint. The prosecutor did not have a lackadaisical attitude regarding the case, which had commenced only three months prior. On the contrary, she actively sought to expedite the certificates of analysis so that they would be ready by the trial date. Nor would a continuance of the trial have prejudiced the defendant, particularly when the Commonwealth was ready to proceed on the defendant's recently filed motion to suppress. Finally, although the case was scheduled for trial, the record does not indicate, nor does the defendant argue, that jurors or witnesses would have been inconvenienced by a delay. Contrast Commonwealth v. Anderson, supra. In sum, although the Commonwealth was admittedly not ready for trial, a dismissal on these facts, and under the existing case law, was an abuse of discretion and not a reasonable response. See L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n. 27 (2014). The motion to dismiss should not have been allowed.
In his margin notes denying the Commonwealth's motion to reconsider, the judge observes that the defendant's motion to reduce bail had been denied. While we recognize that pretrial issues of custody and bail implicate important liberty interests of defendants, the judge and the defendant were not without options. Under these circumstances, a prompt from the judge to defense counsel on a renewed motion for reduced bail would have been an appropriate alternative course of action.
--------
The order dismissing the complaint is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
So ordered.