Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a defendant initially charged by District Court complaint with murder in the first degree has a statutory right under G. L. c. 276, § 38, to a probable cause hearing. The hearing must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and the Commonwealth must demonstrate good cause for continuances, although no fixed thirty-day deadline applies. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed as moot because he had been indicted, but the court addressed the issues as capable of repetition yet evading review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant initially charged by District Court complaint with murder in the first degree has a statutory right under G. L. c. 276, § 38, to a probable cause hearing.
- What timing requirement applies to a probable cause hearing under § 38's direction that it occur "as soon as may be."
- Whether a District Court judge may continue a scheduled probable cause hearing, and what showing the Commonwealth must make to justify a continuance.
- Whether the defendant's appeal should be dismissed as moot after the grand jury returned an indictment.
Holdings
- A defendant held in custody pursuant to a District Court complaint charging murder in the first degree has a right under G. L. c. 276, § 38, to a probable cause hearing. The waiver provisions in G. L. c. 263, § 4A, do not eliminate that independent right because a defendant charged with a capital crime cannot waive indictment.
- The probable cause hearing required by § 38 must be held as soon as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The statute does not impose a fixed thirty-day deadline.
- When the Commonwealth seeks to continue a scheduled probable cause hearing, the judge must make a meaningful inquiry into the specific reasons for the request and determine whether the Commonwealth has shown good cause. An ongoing grand jury investigation may be considered but, standing alone, is not necessarily sufficient. While a defendant remains in custody, no single continuance may exceed thirty days over the defendant's objection.
- The defendant's petition became moot when the grand jury returned an indictment, but the court retained discretion to decide the recurring legal issues because they were matters of public importance capable of repetition yet evading review.
Key quotations
“We conclude that § 38 is applicable to such a defendant and provides the defendant with the right to a probable cause hearing as soon as practicable in the circumstances presented.” (464 Mass. at 93)
“Rather, if the Commonwealth seeks to continue the probable cause hearing beyond the date scheduled at arraignment or thereafter, the judge’s responsibility is to make a meaningful inquiry into the specific reasons for the request, and to consider whether the Commonwealth has shown good cause for it.” (464 Mass. at 104)
Factual background
A criminal complaint issued on December 20, 2010, charging the defendant with the murder of Cordell McAfee and unlawful carrying of a firearm. After the defendant's January 21, 2011, arraignment, the District Court scheduled a probable cause hearing, but granted successive Commonwealth requests for continuances based on the need to obtain DNA evidence, delays in reaching witnesses, and the ongoing grand jury investigation. A grand jury indicted the defendant for murder in the first degree on May 7, 2011, before the scheduled probable cause hearing occurred.
Procedural history
A District Court complaint charged the defendant with murder in the first degree and unlawful carrying of a firearm. After arraignment, the District Court granted multiple Commonwealth requests to continue the probable cause hearing while the Commonwealth pursued DNA evidence and a grand jury investigation. The defendant sought relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3; the single justice denied relief, and the Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal as moot while addressing the recurring issues under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception.