Commonwealth v. Matthews

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Matthews

675 N.E.2d 397, 424 Mass. 1007, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 31

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 675 N.E.2d 397 (Commonwealth v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Matthews, 675 N.E.2d 397, 424 Mass. 1007, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 31 (Mass. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion judge allowed the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. The Commonwealth appealed from the dismissal. G. L. c. 278, § 28E. We granted the Commonwealth’s application for direct appellate review.

After the appeal was transferred to this court, we issued our decision in Commonwealth v. Forte, 423 Mass. 672 (1996). We held that sentences to the departmental disciplinary unit of a State prison did not bar, on double jeopardy ground, the subsequent criminal prosecutions of the defendants in that case for the same offenses. Our analysis in that case is controlling here. The segregation unit involved in this case, like the disciplinary unit in Forte, serves deterrent and remedial purposes, as the motion judge expressly noted, in addition to a punitive purpose. Furthermore, “assuming, without deciding, that prison discipline, at least under some extreme circumstances, may invoke double jeopardy principles,” this is hardly a case where the defendant has demonstrated on “the clearest proof’ that the sanctions imposed by the officials at the jail were “so extreme in purpose or effect as to be equivalent to a criminal penalty.” See id. at 677-678.

The order dismissing the complaint is vacated. The case is remanded to the Boston Municipal Court.

So ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The motion judge allowed the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. The Commonwealth appealed from the dismissal. G. L. c. 278, § 28E. We granted the Commonwealth’s application for direct appellate review.

After the appeal was transferred to this court, we issued our decision in Commonwealth v. Forte, 423 Mass. 672 (1996). We held that sentences to the departmental disciplinary unit of a State prison did not bar, on double jeopardy ground, the subsequent criminal prosecutions of the defendants in that case for the same offenses. Our analysis in that case is controlling here. The segregation unit involved in this case, like the disciplinary unit in Forte, serves deterrent and remedial purposes, as the motion judge expressly noted, in addition to a punitive purpose. Furthermore, “assuming, without deciding, that prison discipline, at least under some extreme circumstances, may invoke double jeopardy principles,” this is hardly a case where the defendant has demonstrated on “the clearest proof’ that the sanctions imposed by the officials at the jail were “so extreme in purpose or effect as to be equivalent to a criminal penalty.” See id. at 677-678.

The order dismissing the complaint is vacated. The case is remanded to the Boston Municipal Court.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 N.E.2d 397, 424 Mass. 1007, 1997 Mass. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-matthews-mass-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack