Jackson v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Arthur Jackson’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking interlocutory review of a due process challenge to armed robbery indictments. The court held that Jackson had not shown that an appeal following conviction would be inadequate and declined to extend the extraordinary interlocutory review available for substantial double jeopardy claims to his asserted due process claim.

Holdings

1. A defendant generally may not obtain review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, of the denial of a criminal motion to dismiss before trial unless the single justice decides the matter on the merits or reserves and reports it to the full court.
2. Jackson failed to demonstrate that his due process claim was of a kind requiring extraordinary interlocutory review or that an appeal following conviction would be inadequate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a criminal defendant may use G. L. c. 211, § 3, to obtain interlocutory review of the denial of a motion to dismiss based on an alleged due process violation.
2. Whether Jackson's due process claim warranted the extraordinary interlocutory treatment afforded to substantial double jeopardy claims.

Disposition

affirmed