Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the 2012 amendment reducing the statutory drug-free school-zone radius from 1,000 feet to 300 feet applies to cases in which a guilty plea had not been accepted or a conviction had not been entered as of August 2, 2012. The court concluded that prospective application would be repugnant to the statute's context because the amendment was intended in part to reduce the prior law's disparate impact on urban and minority communities. The case was remanded to the District Court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether St. 2012, c. 192, § 30, reducing the Drug-Free School Zone radius from 1,000 feet to 300 feet, applies to an offense committed before the amendment's effective date when the defendant had been charged but had not pleaded guilty or been convicted by that date.
- Whether prospective application of the amendment would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature or repugnant to the context of the amended statute under G. L. c. 4, § 6, Second.
Holdings
- St. 2012, c. 192, § 30, applies to all cases alleging a school-zone violation in which a guilty plea had not been accepted or a conviction had not been entered as of August 2, 2012, regardless of when the alleged violation occurred.
- The exceptions in G. L. c. 4, § 6, Second, for laws inconsistent with the manifest intent of the law-making body and laws repugnant to the context of the same statute are separate and distinct inquiries.
Key quotations
“We answer “yes” to the reported question and hold that St. 2012, c. 192, § 30, applies to all cases alleging a school zone violation for which a guilty plea had not been accepted or conviction entered as of August 2, 2012, regardless of whether the alleged violation was committed before August 2, 2012.” (552)
“Therefore, the presumption of prospective application is “repugnant to the context of the same statute” where it would be contrary to the purpose of the statute to delay the accomplishment of that purpose.” (556)
“Where the radius of the school zone was reduced from 1,000 feet to 300 feet at least in part because the broader radius was recognized to create an unfair disparate impact on those residing in urban areas and, consequently, on minority residents, and where the broader radius did not better protect school children from drug dealers, we conclude that it would be “repugnant to the context of [that] statute” to apply the § 30 amendment to § 32J prospectively and prolong the unfair disparate impact that the preamendment § 32J was having on urban and minority residents.” (559)
Factual background
On November 8, 2010, Williamstown police executed a search warrant at the defendant's dormitory room and seized marijuana. The room was approximately 700 feet from an accredited preschool facility. The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and with a school-zone violation under the then-applicable 1,000-foot radius. After the Legislature reduced the radius to 300 feet effective August 2, 2012, the defendant sought dismissal because his alleged conduct fell outside the amended zone.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged in the District Court with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a preschool facility. After the effective date of St. 2012, c. 192, § 30, which reduced the school-zone radius to 300 feet, he moved to dismiss because the alleged conduct occurred approximately 700 feet from the preschool. The District Court judge reported the question without decision; the Supreme Judicial Court accepted direct appellate review, answered the question yes, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, applying St. 2012, c. 192, § 30, to the defendant's pending school-zone charge.