SJC clarifies eligibility for erroneous conviction compensation

Listen to this article

Misdemeanor charges do not fall within the scope of the eligibility requirement set forth in the erroneous conviction statute, G.L.c. 258D, §1(C)(vi), the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled.

After the Appeals Court reversed claimant Roberto Cruz’s convictions of two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child, he brought suit in Superior Court seeking compensation under G.L.c. 258D.

The commonwealth moved for summary judgment, arguing 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.

“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,” Justice Serge Georges Jr. wrote for the SJC.

“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, [the Appeals Court’s ruling] 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,” Georges wrote.

The 14-page decision is Cruz v. Commonwealth, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-116-24.