Commonwealth v. Manolo M.

Supreme Judicial Court · July 8, 2025 · No. SJC-13606 / SJC-13607 / SJC-13608

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed delinquency adjudications against three juveniles convicted of resisting arrest under G.L. c. 268, § 32B. The court addressed whether the arresting officers acted under the color of official authority by making a good-faith judgment based on probable cause, and whether the juveniles' conduct was protected by the First Amendment. Concluding that the circumstances supported a good-faith arrest judgment and that the juveniles used physical force or created a substantial risk of injury, the court affirmed the delinquency adjudications.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court
Writing for the Court
Budd, C.J.; Gaziano; Kafker; Wendlandt; Georges; Dewar
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts
Decision date
July 8, 2025
Docket number
SJC-13606 / SJC-13607 / SJC-13608
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Appeals Court affirming the adjudication of delinquency for resisting arrest; Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review limited to resisting arrest issues.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Commonwealth v. Manolo M.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

probable causecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the officer's good‑faith judgment element requires probable cause and whether a motion to dismiss or for a required finding should be granted when probable cause is lacking.
  2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Angela used physical force or threatened force as required by G.L. c. 268, § 32B(a)(1).
  3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Manolo used physical force as required by G.L. c. 268, § 32B(a)(1).
  4. Whether the adjudications of delinquency for resisting arrest should be affirmed.

Holdings

  1. The judge properly denied Frederick's motion to dismiss and both juveniles' motions for required findings on the color of official authority element of resisting arrest.
  2. The evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Angela used physical force against Officer Parrett; the judge properly denied her motion for a required finding.
  3. The evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Manolo used physical force against Officer Vaughn; the judge properly denied his motion for a required finding.
  4. The adjudications of delinquency for resisting arrest are affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings on Manolo's assault and battery adjudication.

Key quotations

We therefore affirm the adjudications of delinquency for resisting arrest and, in Manolo's case, remand for further proceedings on the adjudication for assault and battery on a police officer that was vacated by the Appeals Court.

Factual background

In October 2019 a large crowd of students gathered on Florence Street in Brockton. School resource officers attempted to disperse the crowd; several officers were physically engaged with students. Frederick shouted profanities, Angela recorded officers with a cell phone, and Manolo attempted to run past an officer, was ordered back, charged, and struck. All three were arrested and later adjudicated delinquent for resisting arrest.

Procedural history

The three juveniles were adjudicated delinquent for resisting arrest in a juvenile court trial. The Appeals Court affirmed the adjudications for resisting arrest and vacated Manolo's assault and battery adjudication. The Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review limited to the resisting arrest issues.

Remand instructions

Remand for further proceedings on the adjudication for assault and battery on a police officer that was vacated by the Appeals Court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…