Commonwealth v. Bradley (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-190-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11457 COMMONWEALTH vs. ZACHARY D. BRADLEY. Berkshire. October 7, 2013. ‑ November 21, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. “School Zone” Statute. Statute, Emergency law, Retroactive application, Amendment. Due Process, Retroactive application of statute. Complaints received and sworn to in the Northern Berkshire Division of the District Court Department on December 30, 2010. A question of law was reported to the Appeals Court by Paul M. Vrabel, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Stephen N. Pagnotta for the defendant. John P. Bosse, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GANTS, J. On November 8, 2010, Williamstown police officers executed a search warrant at the defendant’s dormitory room and seized a quantity of marijuana. The dormitory room was approximately 700 feet from the Williams College Children’s Center, an accredited preschool facility. The defendant was charged by criminal complaint in the District Court with possession of a class D substance (marijuana) with intent to distribute, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32C (a), committing this violation within 1,000 feet of a preschool facility, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32J, commonly known as a “school zone” violation. On August 2, 2012, the Governor signed into law St. 2012, c. 192, entitled “An Act relative to sentencing and improving law enforcement tools” (Crime Bill), which contained an emergency preamble that made it effective on enactment. Section 30 of the Crime Bill amended G. L. c. 94C, § 32J, by reducing the radius of the school zone from 1,000 feet to 300 feet. The defendant moved to dismiss the school zone violation, claiming that § 30 of the Crime Bill applies to all cases alleging a school zone violation that had not been adjudicated before August 2, 2012, and that his alleged violation occurred outside the amended school zone. The judge reported without decision the following question to the Appeals Court: “Whether [St. 2012, c. 192, § 30], which reduces the radius of the Drug-Free School Zone from 1,000 feet to 300 feet, should be applied retroactively to an offense that occurred prior to the effective date of the amendment, but for which the Defendant had been charged but not adjudicated on the effective date of the amendment?” We allowed the defendant’s application for direct appellate […]