Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Arthur Jackson’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking interlocutory review of a due process challenge to armed robbery indictments. The court held that Jackson had not shown that an appeal following conviction would be inadequate and declined to extend the extraordinary interlocutory review available for substantial double jeopardy claims to his asserted due process claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a criminal defendant may use G. L. c. 211, § 3, to obtain interlocutory review of the denial of a motion to dismiss based on an alleged due process violation.
- Whether Jackson's due process claim warranted the extraordinary interlocutory treatment afforded to substantial double jeopardy claims.
Holdings
- A defendant generally may not obtain review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, of the denial of a criminal motion to dismiss before trial unless the single justice decides the matter on the merits or reserves and reports it to the full court.
- Jackson failed to demonstrate that his due process claim was of a kind requiring extraordinary interlocutory review or that an appeal following conviction would be inadequate.
Key quotations
“The denial of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case is not appealable until after trial, and we have indicated many times that G. L. c. 211, § 3, may not be used to circumvent that rule.” (1009)
“Thus, he has failed to demonstrate that an appeal following conviction on the armed robbery charges would not be adequate, and the order of the single justice therefore is affirmed.” (1009)
Factual background
Jackson was facing armed robbery indictments after previously being convicted of receiving stolen property. He sought dismissal of the armed robbery indictments, asserting that initiating the charges while the receiving-stolen-property conviction remained intact violated due process. The Superior Court denied the motion, and Jackson sought extraordinary interlocutory review.
Procedural history
After the Superior Court denied Jackson's motion to dismiss, he filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court. The single justice denied relief on the ground that Jackson could obtain review after any conviction. The full Supreme Judicial Court affirmed under S.J.C. Rule 2:21.