Peterson v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-191-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12281 OMARI PETERSON vs. COMMONWEALTH. Suffolk. September 5, 2017. – November 29, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. Erroneous Conviction. Practice, Civil, Motion to dismiss, Review of interlocutory action. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 12, 2014. A motion to dismiss was heard by Peter M. Lauriat, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Adam R. LaGrassa, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth. William S. Smith for the plaintiff. LOWY, J. After the Appeals Court reversed the conviction of the plaintiff, Omari Peterson, and set aside the verdict on a charge of unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon, he filed a civil complaint in the Superior Court seeking compensation under the erroneous convictions statute, G. L. c. 258D. A judge denied the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Commonwealth appealed.[1] We transferred the case here on our own motion to determine whether, under G. L. c. 258D, § 1 (B) (ii), Peterson is eligible to pursue a claim for compensation. Because we conclude that Peterson’s conviction was not reversed by the Appeals Court on “grounds which tend to establish” his innocence within the meaning of this statute, he is not eligible to seek compensation under it. Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss and remand the case to the Superior Court, where judgment shall enter for the Commonwealth. Background and prior proceedings. We recite the uncontested facts. The charge underlying Peterson’s conviction stemmed from a traffic stop of the motor vehicle Peterson was driving. The officers stopped the vehicle in an area known for gang activity after observing the driver commit several traffic infractions. The officers approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and asked Peterson for his driver’s license and registration, both of which he promptly provided. Despite confirming that Peterson’s driver’s license and registration were valid, the officers ordered Peterson to step out of the vehicle. As Peterson did so, the officers noticed that a knife was clipped to his jeans. Peterson was then placed under arrest for carrying a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b). Peterson moved to suppress the knife prior to trial, arguing that the exit order lacked constitutional justification. […]