Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a juvenile indicted as a youthful offender has no right as a matter of course to interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, of the denial of a motion to dismiss. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to reach the merits and concluded that the evidence before the grand jury did not establish probable cause that the charged conduct involved the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm, as required for a youthful offender indictment. The court remanded for entry of judgment allowing the juvenile's petition and reversing the order denying the motion to dismiss.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a juvenile indicted as a youthful offender has a right to interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, of the denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment.
- Whether the grand-jury evidence established probable cause that the charged conduct involved the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm, as required for a youthful offender indictment under G. L. c. 119, § 54.
Holdings
- A juvenile does not have an automatic right to interlocutory review under G. L. c. 211, § 3, of the denial of a motion to dismiss a youthful offender indictment. The claim involves a right to be tried in a different forum, not a right not to be tried, and therefore does not fall within the narrow double-jeopardy exception.
- The grand-jury evidence did not establish probable cause that the charged conduct involved the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm. Digital penetration and other sexual conduct, without additional violence, threats, or circumstances showing fear of serious bodily injury, were insufficient under G. L. c. 119, § 54.
Key quotations
“We conclude that a juvenile is not entitled to G. L. c. 211, § 3, interlocutory review as a matter of right in these circumstances.” (at 2)
“Nevertheless, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the petition and conclude that the youthful offender portion of the indictment was not sufficiently supported by probable cause because the charged conduct did not involve the infliction or threat of serious bodily harm.” (at 2)
“However, the juvenile's alleged conduct does not meet the threshold above which the youthful offender statute allows the case to be heard as a criminal matter rather than as a complaint for delinquency.” (at 13)
Factual background
The juvenile, who was fourteen or fifteen during the relevant period, allegedly engaged in sexual touching of her five- or six-year-old female cousin while the two spent unsupervised time together after dance classes. The conduct included kissing the complainant's breasts, digital vaginal penetration, and instructing the complainant to touch the juvenile's vagina. The evidence showed no explicit threats or additional violence; the juvenile and complainant cared about each other, and the juvenile told the complainant to ask her to stop if it hurt.
Procedural history
A grand jury returned a youthful offender indictment charging the juvenile with rape of a child. The Juvenile Court denied her motion to dismiss for insufficient probable cause under the serious-bodily-harm requirement of the Youthful Offender Act. The county court single justice denied interlocutory relief, but the full court exercised its discretion to reach the merits and remanded for entry of judgment allowing relief and reversing the Juvenile Court's order.
Remand instructions
Remand to the county court for entry of a judgment allowing the petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, and reversing the Juvenile Court judge's order denying the motion to dismiss.