Farley v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgments denying interlocutory review under S.J.C. Rule 2:21(2). The court held that the petitioner had not shown that review of the trial court’s rulings concerning testing and the use of prior-trial testimony could not adequately be obtained on appeal or through other available means. The court distinguished the circumstances from claims involving double jeopardy, where posttrial appellate review may be inadequate.

Holdings

1. The petitioner failed to establish that she could not obtain a favorable ruling at trial or that appellate review would be inadequate; therefore, she did not satisfy Rule 2:21(2).
2. The petitioner failed to demonstrate why she could not adequately obtain review of the trial judge's evidentiary ruling on appeal or by another available means, and the circumstances did not justify interlocutory review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Farley satisfied Supreme Judicial Court Rule 2:21(2) by showing that review of the Superior Court's interlocutory ruling concerning testing results could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by another available means.
2. Whether Farley satisfied Rule 2:21(2) with respect to the interlocutory ruling concerning Roland James's testimony and transcripts from the first trial.
3. Whether the challenged interlocutory rulings implicated a concern comparable to the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense, warranting pretrial appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed