Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a judge lacks authority to continue without a finding or place on file a prosecution for misdemeanor vehicular homicide under G. L. c. 90, § 24G (b). The court interpreted the phrase “prosecutions commenced under this section” in § 24G (a) as applying to prosecutions under both subsections (a) and (b). It vacated the District Court disposition and ordered the case restored to the trial list.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the phrase 'Prosecutions commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file' in G. L. c. 90, § 24G (a), applies to misdemeanor vehicular homicide prosecutions under § 24G (b).
- Whether applying that prohibition to misdemeanor vehicular homicide produces an absurd or unworkable result.
- Whether the legislative history of G. L. c. 90, § 24G, supports a different disposition for negligent-operation vehicular homicide than for intoxicated-driving vehicular homicide.
Holdings
- The phrase 'this section' in § 24G (a) refers to G. L. c. 90, § 24G, as a whole, and therefore prohibits continuances without a finding and placing cases on file in prosecutions for both felony vehicular homicide under § 24G (a) and misdemeanor vehicular homicide under § 24G (b).
- Applying the prohibition to misdemeanor vehicular homicide does not produce an absurd or unworkable result.
- The legislative history does not justify rewriting § 24G to permit continuances without a finding for negligent-operation vehicular homicide while prohibiting them for intoxicated-driving vehicular homicide.
- The District Court lacked authority to continue the misdemeanor vehicular homicide case without a finding, so the disposition must be vacated and the case restored to the trial list.
Key quotations
“We hold that a judge is without authority to continue without a finding a case of misdemeanor vehicular homicide, and order that the disposition be vacated and the case restored to the trial list.” (449 Mass. at 298)
“The words “this subsection” mean subsection (a) of § 24G, and the words “this section” must mean something different. They reasonably can only mean § 24G of G. L. c. 90 in its entirety, the statutory section of which subsection (a) is a part.” (449 Mass. at 301-302)
“The prohibition against “continu[onces] without a finding” and the placement of cases “on file” is not limited to subsection (a), but applies to prosecutions under section 24G, that is, to prosecutions commenced under both subsection (a) and subsection (b) of § 24G.” (449 Mass. at 302)
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the disposition imposed in the District Court and remand the case to be restored to the list of cases to be tried. So ordered.” (449 Mass. at 307)
Factual background
The defendant was charged with misdemeanor vehicular homicide based on negligent operation of a motor vehicle causing another person's death. He admitted facts sufficient to warrant a guilty finding, conditioned on receiving a continuance without a finding. Despite the Commonwealth's objection, the District Court continued the case without a finding.
Procedural history
Millican admitted facts sufficient to warrant a guilty finding on a complaint charging negligent operation of a motor vehicle causing death under G. L. c. 90, § 24G (b). The District Court continued the case without a finding. The Commonwealth petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court for relief, asserting that G. L. c. 90, § 24G (a), expressly prohibited that disposition. The single justice reserved and reported the petition, and the full court vacated the disposition and ordered the case restored to the trial list.
Remand instructions
Vacate the District Court's continuance-without-a-finding disposition and restore the case to the trial list for trial or other legally permissible proceedings.