Commonwealth v. Teixeira; Commonwealth v. Meade (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-149-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11929 SJC-11944 COMMONWEALTH vs. ANGELO TEIXEIRA. COMMONWEALTH vs. CHRISTOPHER A. MEADE. Suffolk. January 11, 2016. – September 16, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1] Boston Municipal Court. District Court, Probable cause hearing. Practice, Criminal, Probable cause hearing, Discovery. Moot Question. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on July 2, 2015. The case was reported by Lenk, J. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on August 10, 2015. The case was heard by Spina, J. Valerie A. DePalma (Jeffrey M. Miller with her) for the defendants. Kathryn Leary, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. John D. Donovan, Jr., Jesse M. Boodoo, Joshua D. Rovenger, & David M. Coriell, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. Benjamin H. Keehn, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. These cases stem from two unrelated, nonfatal shootings in the Roxbury section of Boston in June, 2015, and July, 2015. Angelo Teixeira was arrested for the first shooting, and Christopher Meade for the second. Meade and Teixeira each were charged by complaint in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) with a number of felonies, including some that are outside the final jurisdiction of that court. Pursuant to G. L. c. 276, § 38, probable cause hearings were scheduled for each defendant to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to bind them over to the Superior Court for trial. The Commonwealth was ordered to provide the defendants with discovery in advance of those hearings. Noting that judges of the BMC and the District Court Department[2] are not explicitly authorized, either by statute or by the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure, to order discovery in preparation for probable cause hearings (prehearing discovery), the Commonwealth objected to the discovery orders and filed interlocutory appeals. In considering these cases, we must determine whether judges of the BMC may order prehearing discovery in the absence of specific authorization from G. L. c. 276, § 38, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, or any trial court standing order.[3] We conclude that, because such judges have inherent authority to issue orders essential to their capacity to decide cases, they […]