Commonwealth v. Duquette
438 N.E.2d 334, 386 Mass. 834 (1982)
Rule of Law:
When an 'admission to sufficient facts' is made at a final, non-appealable trial level, it must be accompanied by the same constitutional safeguards required for a guilty plea, including a written waiver of the right to a jury trial and an on-the-record colloquy ensuring the admission is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
Facts:
- Charles E. Duquette was charged with wilful and malicious destruction of property.
- Duquette appeared in District Court and admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a guilty finding.
- The judge continued the case without a finding, on the condition that Duquette make restitution to the property owner.
- Duquette failed to make the required restitution.
- In a subsequent hearing in the jury of six session, Duquette's charge was reduced and the case was again continued without a finding under new conditions, including paying restitution and court costs.
- Duquette again failed to comply with the conditions of the continuance.
Procedural Posture:
- A complaint was filed against Charles E. Duquette in Taunton District Court on August 8, 1978.
- At an initial hearing, Duquette admitted to sufficient facts, and his case was continued without a finding.
- After Duquette defaulted on the conditions, a finding of guilty was entered, and he was sentenced on September 20, 1979.
- Duquette, as the appellant, appealed for a new trial in the jury of six session of the District Court.
- On October 2, 1979, in the jury of six session, a second judge again continued the case without a finding under new conditions.
- After Duquette violated these new conditions, a hearing was held before a third judge on March 19, 1981.
- At this hearing, the Commonwealth (appellee) moved for a guilty finding and sentence, while Duquette (appellant) moved to restore his case to the jury trial docket.
- The third judge denied Duquette's motion, adjudged him guilty, and imposed a sentence.
- Duquette appealed this final judgment to the Appeals Court.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case on its own motion before the Appeals Court could hear it.
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 entering a finding of guilty and imposing a sentence against a defendant in a District Court jury session, after the defendant violated the conditions of a 'continuance without a finding' that was based on an 'admission to sufficient facts,' violate the defendant's statutory and constitutional rights when the defendant never executed a written waiver of his right to a jury trial or engaged in a colloquy confirming the voluntariness of his admission?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynch, J.
No, a defendant cannot be found guilty and sentenced under these circumstances. Entering a guilty finding violated the defendant's rights because he never properly waived his right to a trial by jury. A defendant in the jury of six session has a statutory right to a jury trial which can only be waived by signing a written waiver, as required by G. L. c. 263, § 6. The record shows Duquette never made such a waiver, oral or written. Therefore, it was an error to deny his motion to restore the case to the jury trial docket. Furthermore, if an 'admission to sufficient facts' is to be treated as the functional equivalent of a guilty plea, it must satisfy the constitutional requirements established in Boykin v. Alabama. This requires an affirmative showing on the record that the defendant understands the rights being waived—the right to trial, to confront accusers, and the privilege against self-incrimination—and that the plea is voluntary. There is no evidence such a colloquy occurred; thus, the admission cannot serve as a valid basis for conviction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes crucial procedural safeguards for the common Massachusetts practice of using an 'admission to sufficient facts' to dispose of criminal cases. The court clarified that this informal procedure cannot be used to circumvent a defendant's fundamental right to a jury trial or the due process requirements for a valid guilty plea, especially at a trial level with no further right to appeal. By mandating a written jury waiver and a Boykin-style colloquy for such admissions in the jury of six session, the ruling enhances the constitutional validity of these dispositions. This precedent forces courts to be more formal and explicit, ensuring that defendants fully understand the rights they are waiving, thereby preventing procedural shortcuts from infringing upon core constitutional protections.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Duquette (1982)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"