Commonwealth v. Jaden Reynoso.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: February 13, 2025
• Docket: 24-P-0048
• Status: Unpublished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

24-P-48

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

JADEN REYNOSO.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

Jaden Reynoso filed a petition pursuant to G. L. c. 276,

§ 100K, seeking expungement of his criminal record stemming from

his arrest and charges of strangulation or suffocation and

assault and battery on a family or household member. The

petition was denied by a judge of the District Court. On

appeal, Reynoso argues that expungement was warranted because he

sufficiently demonstrated that the record in the case was

created as the result of demonstrable errors by a civilian

witness. See G. L. c. 276, § 100K (a) (4). He also claims that

expungement was in the best interests of justice. See G. L.

c. 276, § 100K (b). Lastly, he argues that the judge erred by not holding a hearing on his petition or making findings of

fact. We affirm.

Background. We summarize the facts set forth in the police

report which Reynoso submitted with his petition. On the

evening of April 19, 2022, Lynn police officers responded to a

911 call placed by Reynoso. When the police arrived, Reynoso

told them that he had an argument with his then girlfriend, whom

we shall call Jane Doe (Doe), who wanted him to leave the

apartment. Reynoso refused to leave without his belongings and

his daughter, who was in the apartment. The argument quickly

escalated. According to Reynoso, Doe scratched his face, and he

grabbed her hands to protect himself. At some point, Doe called

the father of her children for help in removing Reynoso from the

apartment. He arrived with a man named Javi, who told Reynoso

to leave the apartment, and then punched him in the face. The

police observed some dried blood on Reynoso's cheek. The police

then spoke with Doe who provided a different version of events.

Doe explained that she broke up with Reynoso earlier that day

and they had gotten into an argument when he refused to leave

her apartment. She reported that Reynoso "with both hands,

applied substantial pressure around her neck, pushing her onto

the couch. He was on top of her, strangling her to the point

that she couldn't breathe. [She] scratched [Reynoso's] face to

get him off of her." The officers observed visible red marks

2 and bruising around Doe's neck and concluded that Reynoso was

the "dominant aggressor." Reynoso was arrested and subsequently

charged as described above.

The case was scheduled for trial on February 27, 2023. The

Commonwealth was not ready to proceed that day because Doe

failed to appear. The case was then dismissed for failure to

prosecute.

Approximately seven months later, Reynoso filed the

petition which is the subject of this appeal. He claimed that

the charges stemmed from "civilian errors" and "fraud

perpetrated on the court by the complaining witness (Doe)."1 In

support of his motion, Reynoso submitted an affidavit from Doe

in which she recanted her statement to the police. The judge

denied the petition to expunge without a hearing, finding that

the allegation of civilian error was not supported by clear and

convincing evidence and that expungement was not in the best

interests of justice.

Discussion. A judge may order the expungement of a

criminal record if the judge finds, based on clear and

convincing evidence, that the record was created because of

"demonstrable errors by civilian . . . witnesses." G. L.

c. 276, § 100K (a) (4). Upon determining that the criminal

1 Reynoso has not pursued his claim that his criminal record was created as a result of fraud on appeal.

3 record was created because of such error, the judge may then

consider whether expungement is "in the best interests of

justice." G. L. c. 276, § 100K (b). We review the judge's

order for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. K.W., 490

Mass. 619, 624 (2022).

Reynoso claims that the judge abused her discretion in

denying his petition because Doe's affidavit constituted clear

and convincing evidence of demonstrable error. We are not

persuaded. To begin with, the judge was not required to credit

the affidavit. Commonwealth v. Leate, 361 Mass. 347, 349-350

(1972) (judge not obligated to credit affidavit of recanting

witness). Second, and more importantly, the affidavit

contradicts the observations of the police officers at the

scene. The officers noted that Doe had visible red marks and

bruising on her neck. These injuries supported Doe's initial

statement that Reynoso had strangled her. Furthermore, Doe's

affidavit did not provide an alternative explanation for those

injuries. Given these circumstances, we cannot conclude that

the judge abused her discretion in determining that Reynoso had

failed to meet his burden of proving his criminal record was

created because of an error by a civilian witness. In light of

our conclusion, we need not address the question whether

expungement was in the best interest of justice. See Matter of

Expungement, 489 Mass. 67, 68 (2022).

4 Finally, Reynoso maintains that the judge erred by denying

his petition without a hearing and without issuing a memorandum

and order explaining her decision. We do not understand the law

to require a hearing or written findings where, as here, a judge

denies a petition to expunge pursuant to G. L. c. 276,

§ 100K (a). See K.W., 490 Mass. at 632-633.

Order denying petition for expungement affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Singh & Hershfang, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: February 13, 2025.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.