Preview:

Commonwealth v. Walczak Opinion Summary: Defendant, who was a juvenile at the time of the offense, was indicted for murder in the second degree. The superior court judge dismissed the indictment on the ground that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to the grand jury to support an indictment of murder in the second degree. A majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the order dismissing the indictment, holding (1) contrary to the superior court judge's ruling, the evidence before the grand jury supported the indictment for murder in the second degree; but (2) the grand jury should have been, but was not, instructed by the prosecutor on the elements of murder and on the legal significance of the mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence.
COMMONWEALTH vs. Javon WALCZAK.
SJC-11155.
Essex. May 8, 2012. - December 12, 2012.
Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Dismissal, Indictment, Grand jury proceedings. Grand Jury. Evidence, Self-defense.
Self-Defense. Delinquent Child. Youthful Offender Act.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 27, 2011.

A motion to dismiss was heard by Timothy Q. Feeley, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.

Catherine Langevin Semel, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Jonathan Shapiro (John Cushman with him) for the defendant.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The Commonwealth appeals from an order of a judge in the Superior Court dismissing an indictment that charged the
defendant with murder in the second degree. There was evidence before the grand jury that the defendant, who was
sixteen years old at the time of the offense, stabbed the victim, Rene Valdez, in an altercation that began when the
victim and an accomplice attempted to rob the defendant. The judge dismissed the indictment on the ground that the
Commonwealth had presented insufficient evidence to the grand jury to support an indictment of murder in the second
degree. See Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 385 Mass. 160 (1982). We granted the defendant's application for direct
appellate review and now affirm the order dismissing the indictment.

The court unanimously agrees with the Commonwealth, contrary to the Superior Court judge's ruling, that the evidence
before the grand jury supported the indictment for murder in the second degree. On this point, all Justices agree with
the reasoning set forth in part 3.b of Justice Lenk's concurring opinion, post at (Lenk, J., concurring). Four Justices also
agree with the defendant, however, that there is an alternative basis on which to uphold the judge's order: namely, that
the grand jury should have been, but were not, instructed by the prosecutor on the elements of murder and on the legal
significance of the mitigating circumstances raised by the evidence. The Justices who subscribe to this result do so for
differing reasons. As reflected in her opinion, Justice Lenk is of the view that, in any case where the Commonwealth
seeks to indict a juvenile for murder, the grand jury must be properly instructed by the prosecutor on the elements of
murder, and if there are mitigating circumstances and defenses (other than lack of criminal responsibility) raised by the
evidence, the grand jury must be instructed as to those as well. As explained in his opinion, Justice Gants, joined by
Justices Botsford and Duffly, would hold that in cases where the Commonwealth seeks an indictment for murder and
there is substantial evidence before the grand jury of mitigating circumstances or defenses (other than lack of criminal
responsibility)--evidence sufficiently strong that the integrity of the grand jury would be impaired if it were withheld-

Download sjc-11155.pdf

Massachusetts Law