Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of the Commonwealth’s petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, challenging a discovery order concerning follow-up medical visits by alleged victims. Based on the sparse record, the court construed the order as requiring disclosure of information already in the Commonwealth’s possession and declined to decide whether an order requiring inquiries of independent witnesses would comply with Commonwealth v. Beal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court discovery order required the Commonwealth to inquire of alleged victims about follow-up medical treatment.
- Whether the discovery order, if construed to require such inquiries, would contravene Commonwealth v. Beal.
Holdings
- On the sparse record, the order could be understood only as requiring the Commonwealth to provide information concerning follow-up medical visits that was already in its possession; the court could not conclude that the judge ordered the Commonwealth to make additional inquiries.
- The court did not resolve that question because the record was insufficient to establish that the order imposed such a requirement.
Key quotations
“Based on the record before us, we can conclude only that the judge allowed the defendant’s request to the extent that it requires the Commonwealth to provide information in its possession.” (464 Mass. at 1013)
“We cannot conclude, because the record is not sufficient on the point, that the judge was ordering the Commonwealth to do anything more.” (464 Mass. at 1013)
Factual background
The defendant faced charges arising from five incidents involving five female victims. The Commonwealth had provided some medical-treatment records in discovery, and the defendant sought information about any additional medical examinations or follow-up visits. The Superior Court judge marked the request allowed with respect to follow-up medical visits, while the Commonwealth maintained that it was not aware of additional treatment.
Procedural history
The defendant was indicted on multiple aggravated rape, indecent assault and battery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and related charges. After the Superior Court judge allowed the defendant's request for information concerning follow-up medical visits, the Commonwealth filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition challenging the order. The single justice denied the petition, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, construing the order as requiring disclosure only of information already in the Commonwealth's possession because the record was insufficient to establish that the judge had ordered further inquiry.