Commonwealth v. Clerk of the Boston Division of the Juvenile Court Department
432 Mass. 693 (2000)
Rule of Law:
A clerk-magistrate does not have the authority to hold a criminal complaint application 'open' indefinitely with conditions over the objection of the Commonwealth. A magistrate's statutory duty is limited to determining probable cause and either issuing or denying the application for process.
Facts:
- On April 17, 1998, Greg Margolin and three young men, dressed in yarmulkes for temple services, were walking in Brighton, Boston.
- A car driven by a juvenile, containing three other white males, slowly drove by the group.
- The driver shouted obscenities and made obscene gestures at Margolin's group, and a passenger threw a lit cigarette at them.
- The juvenile then turned the car around, drove back toward the group, and again shouted obscenities at them, yelling 'What are you looking at?' and 'I’m talking to you!'
- Margolin reported the incident and the car's registration number to the Boston police.
- During the ensuing police investigation, the juvenile admitted to being the driver of the car and to having 'said something' to Margolin's group.
Procedural Posture:
- A Boston police detective sought an application for a criminal complaint against the juvenile in the Boston Juvenile Court for four counts of violating civil rights.
- At a show cause hearing, the first assistant clerk-magistrate declined to either grant or deny the application.
- The magistrate held the application 'open' in contemplation of dismissal and ordered the juvenile to comply with several conditions.
- The police and an assistant district attorney appeared before the magistrate seeking reconsideration and a final determination, which the magistrate denied.
- The Commonwealth filed a petition in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County seeking relief from a single justice.
- The single justice denied the Commonwealth's petition.
- The Commonwealth appealed the single justice's denial to the full bench of the Supreme Judicial Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a clerk-magistrate in a Juvenile Court have the authority under G. L. c. 218, § 35A or inherent judicial power to hold a criminal complaint application 'open' and impose conditions on the accused, rather than either granting or denying it, when the Commonwealth objects?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
No. A clerk-magistrate does not possess the authority to hold a criminal complaint application open with conditions over the Commonwealth's objection. A magistrate's power is derived from statute, which limits their function to determining whether probable cause exists to issue process. This action improperly usurps the exclusive prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch. The court reasoned that while magistrates serve a valuable informal screening function, this role cannot be unconstrained by statute or court rules, particularly when it interferes with the prosecutor's decision to bring a case. The court emphasized the separation of powers, stating that a court's office is judicial—to hear and determine—not prosecutorial. By holding the complaint 'open,' the magistrate effectively created a non-statutory form of informal probation and left the Commonwealth without any avenue for appeal, which is contrary to established legal principles.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the separation of powers between the quasi-judicial role of a clerk-magistrate and the executive role of a prosecutor. It firmly establishes that a magistrate's gatekeeping function at a show cause hearing is limited to a binary choice: find probable cause and issue the complaint, or find no probable cause and deny it. The ruling prevents magistrates from creating their own ad hoc diversionary programs or dispositions, thereby reinforcing the principle that the discretion to prosecute, decline prosecution, or offer diversion belongs exclusively to the Commonwealth. This holding ensures that prosecutorial decisions are not supplanted by a magistrate's personal view of how a case should be resolved and guarantees the Commonwealth a right to appeal a final determination.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Clerk of the Boston Division of the Juvenile Court Department (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"