Criminal – Erroneous convictions – Misdemeanor charges

Listen to this article

Where (1) the Appeals Court reversed a claimant’s convictions of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child, (2) he commenced a civil action in Superior Court seeking compensation under G.L.c. 258D, and (3) the commonwealth moved for summary judgment, contending that the Appeals Court’s reversal of the claimant’s convictions did not tend to establish his innocence of simple assault and battery — a charge the commonwealth had voluntarily dismissed by filing a nolle prosequi before the case went to the jury — the Superior Court judge’s decision to deny that motion should be affirmed because misdemeanor charges do not fall within the scope of the eligibility requirement set forth in G.L.c. 258D, §1(C)(vi).

“… Relevant here, §1(B)(ii) limits eligibility to ‘those who have been granted judicial relief by a state court of competent jurisdiction, on grounds which tend to establish the innocence of the individual as set forth in [§1(C)(vi)].’ Per the language of §1(C)(vi), ‘innocence’ requires that the claimant ‘did not commit the crimes or crime charged in the indictment or complaint or any other felony arising out of or reasonably connected to the facts supporting the indictment or complaint, or any lesser included felony.’ Accordingly, because assault and battery, G.L.c. 265, §13A(a), is a misdemeanor, the dispositive question is whether the definition of ‘innocence’ set forth in §1(C)(vi) encompasses misdemeanor offenses. We answer it does not. …

“The Commonwealth contends that, by using the word ‘felony’ in other parts of the statute, but not in the first portion of §1(C)(vi), where the statute refers to ‘crimes or crime charged’ in the indictment or complaint, the Legislature did not intend to limit the phrase ‘crimes or crime charged’ to felony offenses. We are unconvinced. …

“Any remaining doubt that the meaning of ‘crimes or crime charged’ in §1(C)(vi) is limited to felony offenses is resolved by the statute’s legislative history. …

“Having determined that the phrase ‘crimes or crime charged’ under §1(C)(vi) is limited to felony offenses, we conclude that Cruz has satisfied §1(B)(ii)’s eligibility requirement for two reasons. First, simple assault and battery is a misdemeanor crime that falls outside the scope of the statute’s eligibility requirement. Second, as the Commonwealth concedes, Cruz I tends to establish that Cruz is innocent of the charges of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen, felonies for which he was indicted and convicted.

“We affirm the order denying the Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment and remand the matter to the Superior Court for trial. We express no view on the merits of Cruz’s claims.”

Cruz v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-116-24) (14 pages) (Georges, J.) The case was heard by John T. Lu, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Kate R. Isley for the commonwealth; Steven J. Rappaport for the plaintiff; Annie Prossnitz, Maria Makar, Meg Gould, Radha Natarajan, Katharine Naples-Mitchell and Mark Loevy-Reyes submitted a brief for New England Innocence Project and another, amici curiae (Docket No. SJC-13503) (Oct. 16, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.