Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the summary denial of Jeffrey Vigiard’s petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. The court held that interlocutory review of the denial of additional DNA testing was unwarranted because the petitioner had not shown that ordinary appellate review after a final judgment would be inadequate.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the single justice properly denied Vigiard's petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking interlocutory review of the denial of additional DNA testing.
- Whether the petitioner demonstrated under S.J.C. Rule 2:21 that review of the trial court's ruling could not adequately be obtained through a direct appeal after a final adverse judgment or by another available remedy.
Holdings
- The petitioner was not entitled to interlocutory relief because he failed to show that the trial court's ruling could not adequately be reviewed and remedied through a direct appeal after a final adverse judgment or another available remedy.
Key quotations
“Use of the court's extraordinary power of general superintendence is not necessary when there is an adequate alternative remedy. It should not be sought merely as a substitute for ordinary appellate review.” (472 Mass. 1003)
Factual background
Vigiard was indicted on charges of aggravated rape and other offenses. Some items recovered from the crime scene had undergone DNA testing, while others had not. He filed multiple motions seeking testing of the untested items; some were allowed and others denied, including his most recent motion denied on August 14, 2014.
Procedural history
Vigiard was indicted in the Superior Court on aggravated rape and other charges and filed multiple motions seeking DNA testing of untested items. After the Superior Court denied his most recent motion, he petitioned the county court for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. A single justice summarily denied the petition, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that judgment.