Field v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Eunice Field’s petition for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that Field had an adequate alternative remedy through appeal from any adverse ruling on her motion for a new trial, including claims concerning attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient privileges.

Holdings

1. Extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was not warranted because Field had an adequate alternative remedy: any erroneous admission of evidence in violation of her claimed privileges could be remedied on appeal from an adverse ruling on her motion for a new trial.
2. The single justice neither erred nor abused her discretion by denying Field's petition for extraordinary relief without a hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 was available to challenge interlocutory orders requiring trial counsel to testify and requiring production of mental-health treatment records.
2. Whether the asserted attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient privileges justified immediate appellate intervention rather than review after a final adverse ruling on the motion for a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed