Joseph Jabir Pope & another v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered appeals from the denial of petitions seeking stays of execution of criminal sentences pending decisions on motions for a new trial. The court held that Pope's appeal was moot because his motion for a new trial had been denied, and affirmed the denial of Hamilton's requested stay because he had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting a stay. The court also addressed the applicability of the gatekeeper provision in G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. The defendants were not required to file a gatekeeper application before requesting a stay from the single justice because their G. L. c. 211, § 3, petitions functioned as new motions for stays under Mass. R. A. P. 6(b)(1), rather than appeals from the Superior Court's stay rulings.
2. Pope's appeal was moot because his motion for a new trial had been denied, eliminating the pending event for which the stay had been sought.
3. A judge has inherent authority to stay execution of a sentence pending a motion for a new trial in exceptional circumstances, but the COVID-19 pandemic alone does not constitute an exceptional circumstance; Hamilton was required to make a particularized showing and failed to do so.
4. The denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, is reviewed for abuse of discretion or clear error of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the gatekeeper provision of G. L. c. 278, § 33E, required the defendants to obtain authorization from a single justice before seeking stays of execution under these circumstances.
2. Whether Pope's appeal from denial of a stay was moot after his motion for a new trial was denied.
3. Whether Hamilton was entitled to a stay of execution pending the Superior Court's decision on his motion for a new trial.
4. What standard governed review of the single justice's denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.

Disposition

affirmed