From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Martin

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 20, 2012
969 N.E.2d 186 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)

Opinion

No. 11–P–1749.

2012-06-20

COMMONWEALTH v. Corey M. MARTIN.


By the Court (KANTROWITZ, WOLOHOJIAN & MILKEY, JJ.).

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

The Commonwealth appeals from a pretrial order by a judge of the District Court dismissing two of four criminal charges against the defendant. We reverse.

Background. On January 6, 2011, the defendant was arraigned in the District Court on a complaint charging her with child endangerment while operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Count I), negligent operation of a motor vehicle (Count II), resisting arrest (Count III), and operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (Count IV). At a plea hearing on May 10, 2011, the defendant admitted to sufficient facts for Counts II and IV and asked that Counts I and III be dismissed. The judge dismissed Counts I and III over the Commonwealth's objection, and Counts II and IV were continued without a finding for one year.

Discussion. We agree with the Commonwealth that the judge erroneously dismissed Counts I and III over the Commonwealth's objection. “In the context of criminal prosecutions, the executive power affords prosecutors wide discretion in deciding whether to prosecute a particular defendant, and that discretion is exclusive to them.” Commonwealth v. Cheney, 440 Mass. 568, 574 (2003). “Thus, when a judge, ‘[w]ithout any legal basis ... preempt[s] the Commonwealth's presentation of its case [t]hat action effectively usurp[s] the decision-making authority constitutionally allocated to the executive branch.’ “ Ibid., quoting from Commonwealth v. Gordon, 410 Mass. 498, 501 (1991). “The conclusion that judicial power does not extend to authorize a judge to dismiss an otherwise legally adequate indictment, prior to verdict, finding, or plea, in the ‘interests of public justice’ is inescapable,” and “[t]he line that the principle of separation of powers requires us to draw between the exercise of judicial and executive powers could not be more clear.” Id. at 574–575.

We note that the factual recitation presented by the prosecutor during the plea was insufficient to support the charge of resisting arrest (Count III). A judge has the authority to dismiss an indictment on a legal basis, which includes dismissing an indictment “for insufficiency of the evidence to be presented at trial.” Commonwealth v. Gordon, 410 Mass. at 502, citing Rosenberg v. Commonwealth, 372 Mass. 59 (1977). The judge, however, gave no explanation as to why he dismissed either Count III (resisting arrest) or Count I (child endangerment), and we hesitate to assume that he did so on the basis of the sufficiency (or lack thereof) of the facts presented by the Commonwealth during the plea. It will be open to the judge on remand, to the same degree as it was in the first instance, to consider the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's proof.

The order dismissing Counts I and III is vacated and the matter is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum and order.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Martin

Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Jun 20, 2012
969 N.E.2d 186 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. Corey M. MARTIN.

Court:Appeals Court of Massachusetts.

Date published: Jun 20, 2012

Citations

969 N.E.2d 186 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012)
82 Mass. App. Ct. 1102