From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Balthazar B.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Jun 4, 2012
11-P-1742 (Mass. App. Ct. Jun. 4, 2012)

Opinion

11-P-1742

06-04-2012

COMMONWEALTH v. BALTHAZAR B., a juvenile.


NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The Commonwealth appeals from a Juvenile Court judge's order dismissing a complaint charging that the juvenile is a delinquent child by reason of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. We reverse.

Background. On October 18, 2010, Boston police officers found five small baggies containing a green leafy substance in the juvenile's backpack. On October 19, 2010, a complaint issued against the juvenile charging him as a delinquent child by reason of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On March 18, 2011, the juvenile's amended motion to dismiss the complaint was allowed. The judge found that the 'juvenile was not found with any drug processing equipment, 'tools of the trade,' security precautions, or any other paraphernalia indicating an intent to distribute.' The judge then made the following 'conclusions of law':'1. In deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether there is probable cause to support the issuance of the complaint. If there is not probable cause for the issuance of the complaint, the complaint must be dismissed. Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 313 (2002).

'2. The charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute requires the Commonwealth to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the juvenile had the 'intent' to distribute. M.G.L. ch. 94C § 32C.

'3. The possession of a controlled substance in multiple baggies is not enough, by itself, to prove possession with intent to distribute. Commonwealth v. Wooden, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 417, 424 (1982). In the instant case, there was no other evidence found on the juvenile except for the bags containing a green, leafy substance to support the charge of possession with intent to distribute.

'4. 'When the evidence tends equally to sustain either of two inconsistent propositions, neither of them can be said to have been established by legitimate proof.' Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 305 Mass. 393, 400 (1940). As such, the degree of conjecture is insufficient to support the burden the Commonwealth bears in this instance. Commonwealth v. Wooden, 13 Mass. App. Ct. 417, 424 (1982).

'5. Because the Commonwealth cannot meet the burden of proof necessary to establish intent to distribute, the charge of possession with intent to distribute is dismissed.'

Discussion. Because the issuance of a complaint must be supported by probable cause, Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 314 (2002), the sole issue in this case is whether there was probable cause to issue a complaint against the juvenile by reason of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The standard of proof required to issue a complaint is the same as that required to establish probable cause to arrest. Compare Commonwealth v. Lester L., 445 Mass. 250, 252 (2005). 'Probable cause to arrest exists where the facts and circumstances in the arresting officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that an offense has been or is being committed.' Smith, Criminal Practice and Procedure § 3.51 (3d ed. 2007). 'The test is an objective one,' requiring 'less than evidence which would justify . . . conviction but more than bare suspicion.' Ibid.

Applying this standard, we conclude that there was probable cause to issue the complaint. As the judge concluded in her findings of fact on the amended motion to dismiss, the evidence supports an inference that the juvenile intended to distribute the marijuana seized from his person. While we may agree with her that the evidence 'equally supports the inference that the juvenile possessed the marijuana for personal use,' the appropriate legal standard at this stage in the proceedings is whether there was probable cause to support the complaint -- not whether the Commonwealth could satisfy its burden of proving an intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt. Dismissal based upon a claimed insufficiency of the evidence is improper absent a stipulation by the Commonwealth to all of the facts it intends to introduce at trial, Rosenberg v. Commonwealth, 372 Mass. 59, 63 (1977), and the judge's ruling in this case denied the Commonwealth the opportunity to present its case. Accordingly, the order dismissing the complaint charging that the juvenile is a delinquent child by reason of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute must be reversed.

So ordered.

By the Court (Graham, Katzmann & Carhart, JJ.),


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Balthazar B.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Jun 4, 2012
11-P-1742 (Mass. App. Ct. Jun. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Balthazar B.

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. BALTHAZAR B., a juvenile.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Jun 4, 2012

Citations

11-P-1742 (Mass. App. Ct. Jun. 4, 2012)