Commonwealth v. T.C.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: October 11, 2024
• Docket: 24-P-0097
• Status: Unpublished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-97

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

T.C.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from orders of a District Court judge

denying her petition to seal her criminal record and her motion

for reconsideration. We affirm.

Background. In June 2023, T.C. was charged in the District

Court with assault on a family or household member. About a

month later, a judge dismissed the complaint on the

Commonwealth's motion, based on the alleged victim's request and

his stated intention to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not

to testify if called as a witness at trial. In December 2023,

the defendant filed a petition to seal the record of the

dismissed case. See G. L. c. 276, § 100C. A judge denied the

petition without a hearing, finding that the defendant had

failed to make a prima facie case in favor of sealing and that

the defendant could file a new petition to seal in a year. The defendant filed a motion to reconsider the denial of her

petition to seal the record, which the same judge denied without

a hearing, stating that the defendant "did not address

meaningful efforts towards rehabilitation."

Discussion. General Laws c. 276, § 100C, mandates the

sealing of the record of "any criminal case wherein the

defendant has been found not guilty by the court or jury, or a

no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or a finding of no

probable cause has been made by the court," G. L. c. 276,

§ 100C, first para., and grants to judges the discretion to seal

the 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." G. L. c. 276, § 100C, second para. 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, 469 Mass. at 322.

In assessing "good cause" for the purposes of § 100C, second

para., 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.

"At a minimum, judges should evaluate the particular disadvantages identified by the defendant arising from the availability of the criminal record; evidence of

2 rehabilitation suggesting that the defendant could overcome these disadvantages if the record were sealed; any other evidence that sealing would alleviate the identified disadvantages; relevant circumstances of the defendant at the time of the offense that suggest a likelihood of recidivism or of success; the passage of time since the offense and since the dismissal or nolle prosequi; and the nature of and reasons for the particular disposition."

Id. at 316. Notably, "a judge may determine on the pleadings

whether a prima facie showing [of good cause] has been made."

Id. at 322. Where a petitioning defendant fails to make this

preliminary showing, she is not entitled to a hearing on the

merits of the petition. See id. at 321-322.

Here, the defendant stated that she was denied housing and

job training opportunities because of her criminal record.

However, in addition to the dismissal in this case, she had

numerous prior convictions of various criminal offenses which,

presumably, were the causes of the denials of housing and

employment opportunities. The defendant did not identify any

meaningful efforts toward rehabilitation, explain how sealing

the dismissed charge would alleviate any housing or employment

disadvantage she might suffer (especially in light of her two

out-of-State convictions), or address her potential for

recidivism versus future success. Less than five months had

passed between the dismissal and the defendant filing her

petition, and the judge noted that she could file a new petition

in a year. Finally, the subject case was dismissed based on the

3 alleged 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).

On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the

judge's conclusion that the defendant's petition failed to make

the required prima facie case for sealing the record of the

criminal charge. See Pon, 469 Mass. at 316.

Order denying petition to seal record affirmed.

Order denying motion for reconsideration affirmed.

By the Court (Shin, Ditkoff & Brennan, JJ.1),

Clerk

Entered: October 11, 2024.

1 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.