Opinion
July 26, 2007.
Reported below: 68 Mass. App. Ct. 526 (2007). The Appeals Court should not have resolved the appeal on the basis of the seventeen-month delay (the time during which the defendant's Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 motion was under advisement), because the record as it presently stands is not sufficiently developed to permit a resolution on that point; specifically, factual questions remain about what steps, if any, the parties took to meet their respective obligations regarding that period of delay. See COMMW. v. Lauria, 411 Mass. 63, 68-71 (1991). The case is remanded to the Appeals Court for consideration of the remaining issues raised by the parties (concerning the period between the defendant's arraignment and the hearing on his motion to dismiss) and to afford the parries an opportunity, if they wish, to develop the record on the seventeen-month delay.
Orders Further appellate review denied without prejudice.