Lexplug logoLexplug

Commonwealth v. Norrell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
423 Mass. 725 (1996)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A judge in a bench trial does not have the authority to continue a case without a finding of guilt over the Commonwealth's objection after the trial has concluded and the evidence is sufficient to warrant a guilty finding.


Facts:

  • The defendant attended a rock concert.
  • An altercation occurred at the concert.
  • The defendant was involved in a confrontation with two police officers and others.
  • As a result of the confrontation, the defendant was charged with being a disorderly person.

Procedural Posture:

  • The defendant was charged by a complaint with being a disorderly person in a Massachusetts District Court.
  • The defendant waived her right to a jury trial, proceeding with a trial before a judge (a bench trial).
  • After the trial concluded, the judge stated that the facts were sufficient to find the defendant guilty.
  • The Commonwealth (the prosecutor) requested a formal entry of a guilty finding.
  • Over the Commonwealth's objection, the judge ordered the case to be continued without a finding for a period of one year.
  • The Commonwealth appealed the disposition to the Appeals Court.
  • The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own motion.

Locked

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 judge have the authority, after a bench trial and over the Commonwealth's objection, to continue a case without a finding when the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt?


Opinions:

Majority - Greaney, J.

No. A judge lacks the authority to continue a case without a finding after a bench trial when the Commonwealth objects. The Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 28(a), mandate that after a trial, a finding of either guilty or not guilty must be rendered. The practice of a continuance without a finding (CWOF) is a form of pretrial diversion authorized by statute (G. L. c. 278, § 18) and case law for use before trial, not as a post-trial disposition. The court reasoned that allowing a post-trial CWOF creates an anomaly with jury trials, where a jury can only return a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The court found that the District Court's internal Standard of Judicial Practice 3:01, which appeared to permit this practice, could not create a new form of criminal disposition beyond the scope of existing statutes and procedural rules.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the limits of judicial discretion in criminal dispositions in Massachusetts, formally ending the common but unauthorized practice of granting a continuance without a finding after a bench trial against the prosecutor's wishes. It reinforces the procedural distinction between pretrial diversionary programs and post-trial adjudications, strengthening the prosecutor's role in plea negotiations. By making the ruling apply only prospectively, the court avoids disrupting settled cases and demonstrates a pragmatic approach to changing a long-standing, albeit incorrect, practice. The case solidifies the principle that post-trial, the only dispositions available are a finding of guilty or not guilty, as prescribed by formal rules of procedure.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Commonwealth v. Norrell (1996) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Norrell