Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Henry Greenberg’s petition challenging prosecution for operating under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident on double-jeopardy grounds. The court held that civil commitment for alcoholism treatment under G. L. c. 123, § 35, is remedial rather than punitive, although it expressed concern that the procedural protections for Greenberg’s commitment had not been satisfied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an alcohol-treatment commitment under G. L. c. 123, § 35, constitutes punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause and therefore bars a criminal prosecution arising from the same events.
- Whether the specific conditions of Greenberg's confinement rendered the otherwise civil and remedial commitment punitive as applied to him.
Holdings
- A commitment for alcohol treatment under G. L. c. 123, § 35, is civil and remedial rather than criminal or punitive, so it does not constitute punishment that bars a subsequent prosecution under double jeopardy principles.
- The specific conditions of Greenberg's confinement did not convert the civil, remedial commitment under G. L. c. 123, § 35, into criminal punishment for double jeopardy purposes.
Key quotations
“For the reasons stated in the Dutil case, we determine that a commitment for alcohol treatment under G. L. c. 123, § 35, is civil and remedial in nature, not punitive.” (442 Mass. at 1024)
“Thus, double jeopardy principles do not bar Greenberg’s prosecution, and the single justice correctly denied his petition.” (442 Mass. at 1024)
Factual background
Greenberg faced prosecution for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage. Based on the same events, he had been committed to Bridgewater State Hospital under G. L. c. 123, § 35, for treatment of alcoholism. Although the Appeals Court single justice determined that the commitment procedures were improper and ordered his release, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the commitment did not bar the criminal prosecution.
Procedural history
Greenberg was committed to Bridgewater State Hospital under G. L. c. 123, § 35, for alcoholism treatment arising from the same events underlying criminal charges for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage. He filed a petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, arguing that the commitment barred the prosecution under double jeopardy principles. A single justice denied the petition, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. The opinion also noted that a single justice of the Appeals Court had determined the commitment was improper and ordered Greenberg released.