Commonwealth v. Jeffrey M. Rivard.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: February 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-0754
• Status: Unpublished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-754

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

JEFFREY M. RIVARD.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Jeffrey M. Rivard, appeals from the order of

a District Court judge denying his petition to seal his criminal

record. We affirm.

Background. In July 2015, a complaint issued in the

District Court charging the defendant with assault and battery

on a family or household member. On October 29, 2015, after the

victim invoked her marital privilege, the case was dismissed.

In 2020 and again in 2021, the defendant filed petitions to seal

the record of the dismissed case pursuant to G. L. c. 276,

§ 100C. The 2020 petition was denied after a hearing, and the

defendant appealed therefrom. A panel of this court affirmed

the denial in an unpublished decision. See Commonwealth v. Rivard, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2022). The 2021 petition was

denied without a hearing by the same judge who denied the 2020

petition, and the defendant did not appeal therefrom.

In 2024, the defendant filed the petition that is the

subject of the present appeal. Following a hearing in the

District Court before a different judge, the petition was

denied. The defendant now appeals therefrom.

Discussion. General Laws c. 276, § 100C, second par.,

grants to judges the discretion to seal records "[i]n any

criminal case wherein a nolle prosequi has been entered, or a

dismissal has been entered by the court, and it appears to the

court that substantial justice would best be served." See

Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296, 321 (2014). A defendant

petitioning to seal a record pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 100C,

second para., must "set[] forth facts that demonstrate good

cause" for the request. Pon, supra at 322. In assessing "good

cause" for the purposes of § 100C, second par., judges must

balance the government's interest in the public's "right to

know" with the defendant's interest in privacy. See id. at 314-

315. "[A] judge may determine on the pleadings whether a prima

facie showing [of good cause] has been made." Id. at 322.

Here, we first note that our review is hampered by the

defendant's failure to articulate the reasons why the judge

2 abused his discretion in denying the petition. The defendant

contends that the judge "could have considered" the list of

concerns delineated in the defendant's petition but failed to do

so. The conclusory nature of the defendant's arguments makes it

difficult to assess the legal merits of his argument.

In any event, we note that although the defendant, both in

his brief and at the hearing on the 2024 petition, raised some

new grounds to seal his record,1 he failed to describe with

particularity the disadvantages stemming from the availability

of his criminal record. See Pon, 469 Mass. at 316 ("Although

the defendant need not establish a risk of specific harm . . .

he or she must allege with sufficient particularity and

credibility some disadvantage stemming from CORI availability

that exists at the time of the petition or is likely to exist in

the foreseeable future"). In addition, the defendant did not

explain how sealing the dismissed charge would alleviate any

purported housing or employment disadvantage he might suffer or

address his potential for recidivism versus future success. See

id. at 302-303. Indeed, he mentioned that there have been

1Although the crux of the 2020 and 2021 petitions was almost identical to the 2024 petition, there are some differences, including the passage of time, that distinguish the 2024 petition from the prior petitions. For that reason, we disagree with the Commonwealth's argument that the doctrine of direct estoppel bars our review of the denial of the 2024 petition in the present case.

3 "attempts for" loans and grants but did not expand on how his

record affected those "attempts," or even the results of such

purported "attempts." Moreover, he claimed that he "could" lose

his credits at school and "might not" get his associate's degree

if the school were to perform a background check, but again

presented these concerns in a conclusory and speculative manner.2

Instead of explaining good cause to seal his record, he spent

much of his time at the hearing rehashing or attempting to

relitigate procedural issues from his dismissed charge. We also

note that the underlying charge of assault and battery on a

family or household member was dismissed based on the victim's

lack of cooperation with the prosecution as opposed to an

assertion that the defendant was wrongfully accused. See

Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142, 151 (1995) (defendant's case

for confidentiality weaker where dismissal premised on essential

witness's refusal to cooperate). Finally, the petition to seal

that is the subject of this appeal was almost identical to the

2020 and 2021 petitions that were also denied. Accordingly, on

2 The defendant's brief also lists "[p]ositions which were posited with the Court," including, inter alia, "[h]ousing disadvantage," "[l]oan consideration," "trouble volunteering," "[t]ime that has passed since the matter was filed against Appellant," "[e]fforts toward self improvement," and "medical mental health matters," but failed to specify or state with particularity any disadvantages existing at the time of the petition or likely to exist in the foreseeable future.

4 this record we discern neither a showing of good cause by the

defendant nor an abuse of discretion by the judge in denying the

2024 petition. See Pon, 469 Mass. at 316.

Order denying petition to seal affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Neyman & Sacks, JJ.3),

Clerk

Entered: February 2, 2026.

3 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.