Commonwealth v. Eric Lasalle.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: March 4, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-0289
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-289

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

ERIC LASALLE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from a District Court

judge's order dismissing without prejudice a complaint charging

the defendant, Eric Lasalle, with receiving a stolen motor

vehicle, and from an order denying the related motion to

reconsider. The Commonwealth asserts that the judge abused her

discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint because the

Commonwealth bore no fault in the nonappearance of police

officers summonsed by the defendant to testify at trial. We

affirm.

Background. The facts which led to the order of dismissal

are not in dispute. On February 22, 2023, a complaint was

issued by the Lynn Division of the District Court Department, charging the defendant with receiving a stolen motor vehicle,

G. L. c. 266, § 28 (a). A trial date was scheduled for August

22, 2023, but the defendant did not appear on that date, and a

default warrant issued. The default warrant was later removed

and on January 18, 2024, although both parties answered ready

for trial, the case was continued to April 11, 2024, due to

court congestion. On that date, the Commonwealth again answered

ready for trial. The defendant, however, requested a

continuance because the arresting officer, whom defense counsel

had properly summonsed, did not appear. The case was continued

a second time due to court congestion.

On July 23, 2024, the fourth trial date, two police

officers summonsed by the Commonwealth and the defendant did not

appear.1 The Commonwealth again answered ready for trial,

representing that it could proceed with the one officer who had

appeared. The defendant requested the case be dismissed,

characterizing both absent witnesses as "critical." The case

was set for a later call that day.

At the next call of the case, the prosecutor reported that

she had reached out to the two officers who had not appeared,

who "informed [her] that they were unavailable to come to Court

1 In total, three police officers summonsed by the defendant did not appear on the July 23, 2024 trial date.

2 today." The judge then dismissed the complaint without

prejudice over the Commonwealth's objection. The Commonwealth's

motion to reconsider was denied, and this appeal followed.

Discussion. "Where a dismissal is without prejudice, the

judge's action should be upheld in the absence of an abuse of

discretion." Commonwealth v. Connelly, 418 Mass. 37, 38 (1994).

Under this standard, we determine whether the judge's decision

resulted from "'a clear error of judgment in weighing' the

factors relevant to the decision . . . such that the decision

falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives." L.L. v.

Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).

As the judge noted in her decision on the Commonwealth's

motion to reconsider, this was the "third trial date at which

the defendant appeared," and the "[d]efendant sent the summons

more than 2 months before the 7/23/24 trial date and followed up

by email." Where the officers did not appear despite being

summonsed by both the defendant and the Commonwealth, and did

not provide the judge a reason for their absence, dismissal

without prejudice does not fall outside the range of reasonable

options available to the judge.2 See State Realty Co. of Boston

2 While the Commonwealth argues that the judge could have ordered another continuance or issued capias warrants for the missing witnesses, the prosecutor never made these suggestions to the judge, nor do such options necessarily render the

3 v. MacNeil Bros., 358 Mass. 374, 379 (1970) (court has "the

right and the duty to keep the judicial system in efficient

operation").

Furthermore, there has been no showing by the Commonwealth

that there is any undue prejudice in seeking a new complaint

against the defendant. "The Commonwealth may not claim the

dismissal caused prejudice to it merely because it would have to

seek a fresh complaint when ready to proceed anew with the

prosecution." Commonwealth v. Corbett, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 773,

778 (1989). The absence of such prejudice further supports our

finding of no abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v.

Anderson, 402 Mass. 576, 579 (1988).

The order dismissing the complaint without prejudice and

the order denying the motion to reconsider are affirmed.

So ordered.

By the Court (Vuono, Ditkoff & D'Angelo, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: March 4, 2026.

dismissal without prejudice "outside the range of reasonable alternatives." L.L., 470 Mass. at 185 n.27.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.