Commonwealth v. Smith
384 Mass. 519, 427 N.E.2d 739 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's plea bargain offer is only enforceable if the defendant reasonably relied on the promise to his detriment. Absent an explicit agreement to the contrary, such an offer is implicitly withdrawn once the case is submitted to the jury.
Facts:
- The defendant, Smith, and a co-defendant, Hill, were charged with murder.
- The prosecutor offered Smith a plea deal to reduce the charge to second-degree murder, but the offer was conditional on Hill also pleading guilty to the same charge.
- Smith indicated his willingness to accept the offer, but Hill refused to engage in any plea negotiations throughout the trial.
- The case against both defendants was submitted to the jury for deliberation.
- During deliberations, the jury sent questions to the judge that strongly implied they were likely to convict Smith of first-degree murder.
- Upon learning of the jury's questions, Hill changed his mind and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, a plea the prosecutor did not oppose.
- Immediately after Hill's plea, Smith attempted to accept the prosecutor's original offer for himself.
- The prosecutor objected, arguing that the offer had terminated when the case went to the jury.
Procedural Posture:
- Smith and his co-defendant, Hill, were tried jointly for murder in a state trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Smith guilty of murder in the first degree.
- Smith filed a post-verdict motion for a new trial, arguing the judge erred by not forcing the prosecutor to honor the plea offer.
- The trial court judge denied the motion for a new trial.
- Smith appealed both his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 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:
Is a prosecutor's plea bargain offer, which was not detrimentally relied upon by the defendant, enforceable after the case has been submitted to the jury and the jury has asked questions indicating a likely conviction on a more serious charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, J.
No, the plea bargain offer is not enforceable. A prosecutor’s plea offer can only be enforced if a defendant has reasonably relied on that promise to his detriment. Here, the defendant has shown no such reliance. Furthermore, any reasonable expectation that the offer remained open terminated when the case was submitted to the jury. The rationale for a plea bargain—conserving state resources and avoiding the risk of trial—ceases to exist once the trial has concluded and the jury is deliberating. The jury's questions, which signaled a probable conviction for first-degree murder, further extinguished any reasonable basis for the defendant to believe the offer was still valid. As the defendant was not harmed by any reliance on a promise, he is left with the adequate remedy of his trial and is in no worse position than if no offer had ever been made.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear default rule in Massachusetts for the termination of plea bargain offers, holding that they expire upon submission of the case to the jury unless explicitly kept open. It reinforces the high bar for enforcing such agreements, requiring not just an offer and acceptance but also detrimental reliance by the defendant. The ruling gives prosecutors substantial discretion, allowing them to revoke offers when the strategic benefits of a plea—like avoiding an uncertain trial outcome—have disappeared. For defense attorneys, it underscores the importance of finalizing any plea agreements before deliberations begin, as waiting until the likely outcome becomes clear is not a viable strategy.
