Posts tagged "Pariseau"

Commonwealth v. Pariseau (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-008-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     SJC‑11302   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  ELI PARISEAU.     Berkshire.     September 9, 2013.  ‑  January 13, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Sex Offender.  Constitutional Law, Sex offender, Delay in rendering decision.  Due Process of Law, Sex offender, Adjudicatory proceeding, Delay in rendering decision.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on September 2, 2009.   The case was heard by John A. Agostini, J.   After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.     Brad P. Bennion for the defendant. Joseph A. Pieropan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. David E. Sullivan, District Attorney, & Steven Greenbaum, Assistant District Attorney, for District Attorney for the Northwestern District & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.       DUFFLY, J.  Several months after the conclusion of a jury‑waived trial, a Superior Court judge issued a decision determining that the defendant is a sexually dangerous person (SDP) and ordering him committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center (treatment center) for an indeterminate period.  G. L. c. 123A, § 14 (d).[1]  The judge’s decision issued after our opinion in Commonwealth v. Blake, 454 Mass. 267, 268-260 (2009), which required that, absent extraordinary circumstances, a judge must issue a decision on an SDP petition within thirty days of the conclusion of a jury-waived trial.  The defendant appealed, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support a determination that he is sexually dangerous and that, because the trial judge’s decision was not rendered within thirty days of the end of the trial, he is entitled to dismissal of the Commonwealth’s petition or, in the alternative, a new trial.  The Appeals Court affirmed.  See Commonwealth v. Pariseau, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 705, 712 (2012).  We allowed the defendant’s petition for further appellate review, “limited to the issue of what remedy, if any, is available when a judge who has presided over a jury‑waived trial pursuant to G. L. c. 123A, § 14, does not render a decision within thirty days of the end of the trial, pursuant to [Blake, supra].”   Although the trial judge’s decision was not issued within thirty days as required by Blake, supra at 268, we conclude that neither dismissal nor a new trial is warranted in circumstances such as those present here.  Although such remedies may be appropriate […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 14, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,