Commonwealth v. Riley
73 Mass. App. Ct. 721, 901 N.E.2d 151, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 237 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain an indictment for murder in the first degree, the evidence presented to the grand jury must be sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant committed the murder with an aggravating factor, such as deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity or cruelty.
Facts:
- Michael and Carolyn Riley lived with their four-year-old daughter, Rebecca, who was diagnosed with bipolar and attention deficit disorders and prescribed several medications, including clonidine.
- A doctor had warned Carolyn Riley about the dangers of clonidine and the specific risk of increasing Rebecca's dosage.
- Despite the warning, Carolyn, often at Michael's direction, regularly gave Rebecca doses of clonidine higher than prescribed to sedate her for long periods, and hoarded the medication to maintain an extra supply.
- In the weeks before her death, school officials and others expressed alarm to Carolyn about the amount of medication Rebecca was receiving.
- In early December 2006, Rebecca became severely ill with vomiting, coughing, and disorientation, but the Rileys repeatedly refused pleas from their housemates to take her to a doctor.
- Instead of seeking medical care for their visibly ill child, the Rileys took her with them to the Social Security office on two separate days to inquire about benefits.
- On the night of Rebecca's death, Michael became annoyed with her constant coughing and told Carolyn to give her extra clonidine so she would sleep.
- The next morning, the Rileys found Rebecca dead on their bedroom floor; an autopsy revealed the cause of death was intoxication from a fatal amount of clonidine combined with other drugs.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury returned indictments charging Michael Riley and Carolyn Riley with the murder of their daughter.
- The defendants filed a motion in the Superior Court to dismiss the indictments.
- The Superior Court judge granted the motion in part, dismissing so much of the indictments as alleged murder in the first degree.
- The judge also precluded the Commonwealth from proceeding at trial on theories of first and second prong malice for the remaining charge of murder in the second degree.
- The Commonwealth (appellant) appealed the Superior Court judge's order to the Massachusetts Appeals 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 the evidence presented to a grand jury, detailing a prolonged course of conduct where parents knowingly administered fatal doses of prescription medication to their child while ignoring her severe illness, suffice to establish probable cause for an indictment of murder in the first degree?
Opinions:
Majority - Grasso, J.
Yes. The evidence presented to the grand jury was sufficient to establish probable cause for an indictment of murder in the first degree. The grand jury's function is not to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but to assess whether there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed. The defendants' entire course of conduct—including knowingly administering dangerous overdoses, systematically ignoring Rebecca's obvious and severe suffering, and their actions in the days leading up to her death—provided sufficient circumstantial evidence for a grand jury to infer malice, deliberate premeditation, and extreme atrocity or cruelty. It is the role of the petit jury at trial, not a judge reviewing a grand jury indictment, to weigh this evidence and resolve subtle gradations of culpability.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental distinction between the accusatory function of the grand jury and the adjudicatory function of the petit jury. It clarifies that while an indictment for first-degree murder requires evidence of an aggravating factor, the standard of proof is merely probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling grants significant deference to a grand jury's ability to draw inferences about a defendant's intent from circumstantial evidence, limiting a judge's power to dismiss indictments based on evidentiary sufficiency. This precedent strengthens the prosecution's hand in bringing serious charges based on a reasonable belief that a crime was committed, leaving the ultimate determination of guilt and degree to a trial jury.
