Erickson v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Heidi K. Erickson’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a District Court probation violation proceeding and seeking related relief. The court held that ordinary appellate remedies were available and that the single justice did not abuse his discretion in denying recusal based on adverse rulings.

Holdings

1. Relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was properly denied because adequate alternative remedies existed: a stay had already been sought through other available avenues, and an appeal from the final disposition of the probation proceeding lay in the Appeals Court.
2. The single justice did not abuse his discretion by denying recusal because the petitioner showed no bias or prejudice arising from an extrajudicial source; adverse rulings alone do not establish judicial bias.

Questions Presented

1. Whether extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was available to challenge the probation violation proceeding and obtain a stay when ordinary appellate and other remedies were available.
2. Whether the single justice abused his discretion by denying the petitioner's motion for recusal based on adverse rulings in the present and prior proceedings.

Disposition

affirmed