Appeals – G.L.c. 211, §3

Listen to this article

Where a petitioner sought relief under G.L.c. 211, §3, a single justice’s decision to deny that motion should be affirmed because the petitioner has an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process.

“In August 2023, the petitioner filed a motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, seeking to withdraw his pleas on charges of rape and other offenses, to which he had pleaded guilty in 2000. An evidentiary hearing took place on that motion. Shortly before that hearing, the petitioner filed a motion to limit plea counsel’s testimony on attorney-client privilege grounds. The judge deferred ruling on that motion, and the hearing proceeded, with the petitioner lodging objections to plea counsel’s testimony. After some discussion of the petitioner’s claim of privilege, the judge suspended the hearing. She subsequently denied the motion to limit plea counsel’s testimony on the ground that the petitioner had placed his privileged communications at issue. The petitioner’s G.L.c. 211, §3, petition challenged this ruling.

“… As the single justice ruled, he has an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process. If any privileged communications are improperly disclosed, ‘the error can be remedied on appeal from any adverse ruling on the motion for a new trial.’ Field v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass. 1011, 1011 (2015). Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to extraordinary relief under G.L.c. 211, §3.”

Allah v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-118-24) (2 pages) (Rescript) Andrew S. Crouch for the petitioner (Docket No. SJC-13629) (Oct. 18, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.