Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto
436 Mass. 310, 2002 Mass. LEXIS 141, 764 N.E.2d 338 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A District Court or Boston Municipal Court (BMC) judge may not conduct a de novo evidentiary hearing to review a clerk-magistrate’s finding of probable cause to issue process on a criminal complaint; the proper remedy for a defendant challenging such a finding is a motion to dismiss the complaint after its issuance.
Facts:
- Bruce Sumoski alleged that the defendant, his former landlord, struck him one night, causing him to lose consciousness.
- The defendant admitted involvement in some type of an encounter with Sumoski, but denied the alleged assault and battery.
- A police officer filed an application in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) for the issuance of a criminal complaint against the defendant for assault and battery on Sumoski.
Procedural Posture:
- An assistant clerk-magistrate in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) held a show cause hearing and found probable cause, issuing process for a criminal complaint against the defendant.
- At the defendant’s arraignment, a BMC judge ordered the case reheard by a different clerk-magistrate after the defendant alleged his witness had been denied the opportunity to testify at the initial show cause hearing.
- The second clerk-magistrate again found probable cause.
- The defendant "appealed" this finding, appearing before the same BMC judge, claiming a police officer acquainted with the complainant had been improperly permitted to ask questions or make comments.
- The BMC judge then conducted a third evidentiary hearing and found that no probable cause existed to issue the complaint.
- The Commonwealth filed a petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and the case was reserved and reported to the Supreme Judicial Court for the full 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 District Court or Boston Municipal Court (BMC) judge have the authority to conduct a de novo evidentiary hearing to review a clerk-magistrate's finding of probable cause to issue process on an application for a criminal complaint?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
No, a District Court or BMC judge does not have the authority to conduct a de novo evidentiary hearing to review a clerk-magistrate’s finding of probable cause to issue process on an application for a criminal complaint. The court reasoned that the relevant statutory provisions (G. L. c. 218, §§ 35 and 35A) do not authorize a subsequent rehearing of a clerk-magistrate's finding of probable cause. While these statutes provide an opportunity for the person against whom the complaint is made to be heard in opposition to its issuance, they do not create a mechanism for judicial de novo review. The court distinguished its prior holding in Bradford v. Knights, which recognized inherent judicial authority to rehear denials of criminal complaints, by clarifying that Bradford applied to complainants who lacked further recourse. In contrast, a defendant against whom a complaint is issued does have a specific legal remedy: a motion to dismiss the complaint after its issuance. This motion is the appropriate and only way to challenge the probable cause finding, whether based on insufficient evidence, a violation of the integrity of the proceeding, or any other challenge to the complaint's validity. The court emphasized that once a clerk-magistrate finds probable cause, that stage of the proceedings ends, and the complaint should issue. Any alleged procedural defect during the show cause hearing (such as denying defense witnesses) must be addressed through a motion to dismiss, not through a de novo judicial review. The court exercised its power of general superintendence under G. L. c. 211, § 3, noting the Commonwealth's substantial interest in prosecuting crimes and the lack of any other appeal mechanism for the Commonwealth from an adverse probable cause determination by a judge.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and restricts the scope of judicial review over clerk-magistrate probable cause determinations in Massachusetts, channeling challenges into a structured post-issuance motion to dismiss. By prohibiting de novo evidentiary hearings by judges, the ruling reinforces the finality of a clerk-magistrate's probable cause finding for the purpose of issuing a complaint, streamlining the early stages of criminal proceedings and preventing defendants from repeatedly litigating the same preliminary issue. This decision ensures judicial efficiency and upholds the authority of clerk-magistrates, while still providing an avenue for defendants to contest the complaint's validity through established legal procedures.
