In the Matter of Two Applications for a Criminal Complaint ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
    revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
    volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
    error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
    Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
    Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
    1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
    SJC-13373
    IN THE MATTER OF TWO APPLICATIONS FOR A CRIMINAL COMPLAINT.
    October 11, 2023.
    Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.
    Practice, Criminal, Complaint, Standing.
    The petitioner appeals from a judgment of the county court
    denying, without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L.
    c. 211, § 3. We affirm.
    The petitioner filed in the District Court an application
    for a criminal complaint charging a certain individual with
    witness intimidation, G. L. c. 268, § 13B, and unlawful
    wiretapping, G. L. c. 272, § 99 C 1. An assistant clerk-
    magistrate in the District Court found no probable cause and did
    not issue the requested complaint. The petitioner filed a
    motion for redetermination. A judge in the District Court
    denied that motion. Thereafter, alleging that the individual
    had committed further unlawful acts, the petitioner filed
    another application for a criminal complaint, this time in the
    Boston Municipal Court (BMC), charging the individual with
    witness intimidation. The clerk-magistrate of the BMC found no
    probable cause and did not issue the requested complaint. The
    petitioner has not sought redetermination in the BMC. The
    petitioner's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, as supplemented,1
    sought relief pertaining to both the District Court and BMC
    proceedings and particularly sought the issuance of criminal
    complaints. The single justice denied relief without addressing
    the merits.
    1 The petitioner initially filed a petition concerning only
    the District Court proceedings. The single justice permitted
    him to supplement his petition to include the BMC proceedings.
    2
    The single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion
    by denying relief. "As we have explained, '[a] single justice
    considering a petition filed pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3,
    performs a two-step inquiry. . . . The first step requires the
    single justice to decide "whether to employ the court's power of
    general superintendence to become involved in the matter," . . .
    or, stated differently, to "decide, in his or her discretion,
    whether to review 'the substantive merits of the . . .
    petition.'"'" Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 
    492 Mass. 1013
    , 1014
    (2023), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 
    487 Mass. 1007
    , 1008
    (2021). See Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 
    482 Mass. 22
    , 24 (2019).
    "The single justice need not take the second step (which is to
    resolve the petition on its substantive merits) 'if the
    petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy or if the single
    justice determines, in his or her discretion, that the subject
    of the petition is not sufficiently important and extraordinary
    as to require general superintendence intervention.'" Brown,
    supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Dilworth, 
    485 Mass. 1001
    , 1002
    (2020). "Where, as here, the single justice denied relief
    without reaching the substantive merits of the . . . petition,
    'it is incumbent on the [petitioner] to show that on the record
    before him, the single justice was required to exercise the
    court's superintendence power: that is, that the [petitioner]
    had no adequate alternative remedy and that the single justice
    abused his discretion by failing to reach the merits of [his]
    petition.'" Monteiro, supra, quoting Brown, supra. The
    petitioner's complaint is that the clerks-magistrate of the
    District Court and the BMC considered his applications, found
    they were not supported by probable cause, and declined to issue
    the requested criminal complaints. The decision to issue or not
    to issue a criminal complaint is a routine matter in those
    courts. The single justice was not obligated to exercise this
    court's extraordinary superintendence power in these
    circumstances.
    Even considering the merits, the petitioner fares no
    better. "It is well established that 'a private citizen lacks a
    judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
    nonprosecution of another.'" Matter of an Application for a
    Criminal Complaint, 
    477 Mass. 1010
    , 1011 (2017), quoting Ellis,
    petitioner, 
    460 Mass. 1020
    , 1020-1021 (2011). "For this reason,
    'we have consistently declined to review, under the authority
    given to us by G. L. c. 211, § 3, refusals to issue
    complaints.'" Matter of an Application for a Criminal
    Complaint, 
    supra,
     quoting Bradford v. Knights, 
    427 Mass. 748
    ,
    752 (1998). In our system, "[a] private party's rights with
    3
    respect to the criminal complaint process are limited to the
    filing of an application and court action on that application.
    Once a private party alerts the court of the alleged criminal
    activity through the filing of an application and the court
    responds to that application, the private party's rights have
    been satisfied." Victory Distribs., Inc. v. Ayer Div. of the
    Dist. Court Dep't, 
    435 Mass. 136
    , 141 (2001). The petitioner
    filed his applications, and the District Court and the BMC acted
    on them. He has no standing to obtain extraordinary relief in
    this matter.2 Matter of an Application for a Criminal Complaint,
    
    supra.
    Judgment affirmed.
    The case was submitted on briefs.
    The petitioner, pro se.
    2 We express no view as to whether probable cause exists to
    charge the individual with witness intimidation or any other
    offense.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SJC 13373

Filed Date: 10/11/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/17/2023