Appeals – G.L.c. 211, §3

Listen to this article

Where a single justice denied the commonwealth’s petition for extraordinary relief from an order of a District Court judge denying its motion in limine to admit in evidence out-of-court statements of the alleged victim pursuant to the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the commonwealth failed to establish exceptional circumstances requiring general superintendence intervention, so the judgment of the single justice denying the petition should be affirmed.

“… In its petition, the Commonwealth argued that it lacked an adequate alternative remedy, but apart from an assertion that it would be ‘irreparably prejudiced,’ the Commonwealth did not argue that the order at issue presented extraordinary circumstances. …

“The single justice concluded that the Commonwealth had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances requiring extraordinary intervention pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3. In this appeal from the judgment of the single justice, the Commonwealth argues that the single justice abused his discretion in concluding that the case did not present extraordinary circumstances. In support of this contention, it asserts that the motion judge’s order effectively terminated a prosecution based on charges arising from serious allegations of domestic violence and effectively rewarded [respondent Wayne] LeBlanc for his purported misconduct. …

“… The Commonwealth’s petition failed to argue exceptional circumstances except in a conclusory fashion. … The petition did not describe how the motion judge’s order would preclude the prosecution of the various charges against the defendant from proceeding, and it did not explain the extent or weight of the evidence remaining after the motion judge’s exclusion of the out-of-court statements, though it noted that there was at least some other evidence in the form of LeBlanc’s statements to police. … Indeed, the Commonwealth’s petition provided the single justice with only a brief summary of the out-of-court statements it sought to admit. In sum, the Commonwealth left the single justice with insufficient information to weigh the evidence and determine whether the ruling was more than a routine evidentiary determination. …

“Because the Commonwealth failed to establish exceptional circumstances requiring general superintendence intervention, we affirm the judgment of the single justice denying the petition.”

Commonwealth v. LeBlanc (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-035-26) (7 pages) (Rescript) Hallie White Speight (Madison Bush also present) for the commonwealth; David Rassoul Rangaviz (Kayla Weaton also present) for the respondent (Docket No. SJC-13858) (April 9, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.