Commonwealth vs. Eugene M. McCarthy, Jr.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk
385 Mass. 160, 430 N.E.2d 1195 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A grand jury indictment must be dismissed if it is not supported by sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the accused and probable cause to believe that the accused committed a crime.

Facts:

A party was held, attended by the defendant, a victim, the victim's sister, and William Maloney, among others.
During the party, William Maloney attempted to rape the victim.
The victim managed to escape from Maloney.
After the victim escaped, the victim's sister entered the house where the party was occurring and recognized the defendant as being present.
No evidence was presented to the grand jury suggesting the defendant was present during the assault itself or that he aided, commanded, counseled, or encouraged Maloney.

Procedural Posture:

A Norfolk County grand jury returned an indictment charging the defendant with assault with intent to rape.
In the Superior Court, the defendant filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing it was unsupported by evidence.
The trial judge denied the motion to dismiss.
Following a trial, a jury convicted the defendant.
The defendant's sentence was stayed pending appeal.
The defendant applied for direct appellate review to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which the court granted.

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 grand jury indictment violate legal requirements when it is unsupported by any evidence of the defendant's criminal activity or any evidence establishing probable cause for arrest?

Opinions:

Majority - Abrams, J.

Yes. A grand jury indictment is invalid when it is unsupported by any evidence establishing probable cause that the defendant committed a crime. The court held that while it generally will not inquire into the sufficiency of evidence before a grand jury, an indictment must meet a minimum standard. This standard requires the grand jury to hear enough evidence to establish both the identity of the accused and probable cause to arrest them, which is defined as information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the defendant committed the offense. In this case, the only evidence against the defendant was his 'mere presence' at the location where the crime occurred, which is insufficient to establish accomplice liability. Since there was no evidence that the defendant aided, commanded, counseled, or encouraged the principal offender, the indictment was not supported by probable cause and was therefore fatally defective.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a crucial check on prosecutorial power by setting a minimum evidentiary floor for a valid grand jury indictment in Massachusetts. It clarifies that the grand jury's historical function as a shield against unfounded prosecutions is not merely symbolic. By requiring at least the same level of probable cause needed for an arrest, the court ensures that a person cannot be subjected to the expense and anxiety of a public trial based on an indictment devoid of any incriminating evidence. This precedent empowers defendants to challenge indictments that lack a fundamental evidentiary basis.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth vs. Eugene M. McCarthy, Jr. (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature