Case Title: Boisvert v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13002

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-05-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13002 
 
SEAN BOISVERT  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
May 26, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Bail. 
 
 
 
The petitioner, Sean Boisvert, appeals from a judgment of a 
single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking bail review.  Boisvert was indicted, 
in 2016, on numerous charges including assault with a dangerous 
weapon, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b); intimidation of 
a witness or juror, in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B; rape of 
a child aggravated by a five-year age difference, in violation 
of G. L. c. 265, § 23A; indecent assault and battery on a child 
under the age of fourteen, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13B; 
and possession of child pornography, in violation of G. L. 
c. 272, § 29C.  A judge in the Superior Court initially set cash 
bail at $100,000 (initial bail decision). 
 
Approximately two years later, Boisvert, who has been 
unable to pay the cash bail and remains in pretrial detention, 
sought review of the bail determination.  At a hearing in May 
2018, his counsel noted that the request for bail review was 
being made on the basis of this court's decision in Brangan v. 
Commonwealth, 477 Mass. 691 (2017).  Specifically, counsel asked 
the court to consider Boisvert's financial circumstances and to 
make written findings in light of Brangan.  At the conclusion of 
the hearing, the judge (a different judge from the one who had 
set the initial cash bail of $100,000) reduced the cash bail to 
$30,000; the judge did so from the bench and without any 
findings or explanation, oral or written (bail reduction 
decision). 
 
2 
 
Boisvert thereafter sought to have his bail reviewed again, 
in the trial court, on at least three different occasions, 
including in November 2019, to no avail.  Then, in March 2020, 
and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, he filed a "Motion for 
Bail Hearing and Personal Recognizance Based on Health Concerns 
of Emergency Nature and Recent Change in Laws."  After a video 
hearing, the motion was denied, in April 2020.  The judge (yet 
again a different judge from the two judges who had made the 
initial bail decision and the bail reduction decision) completed 
a preprinted form entitled "Findings and Order on Request for 
Release on COVID-19 Grounds," finding that Boisvert was not 
entitled to a rebuttable presumption of release, checking off 
the boxes indicating that he had considered the risk of 
Boisvert's exposure to COVID-19 if he remained in custody; 
whether Boisvert would pose a safety risk if released; and 
Boisvert's release plan.  The judge maintained the $30,000 cash 
bail and explained that Boisvert had acknowledged that he was 
homeless and would be unemployed if released; that he would face 
significant mandatory time if convicted; and that he had, during 
the course of the trial court proceedings, discharged a number 
of appointed attorneys.  As to the latter point, Boisvert has 
appeared mostly pro se (as he does in this court), but he has 
had court-appointed standby counsel throughout.  It appears from 
the trial court docket that he has had at least five different 
attorneys. 
 
Then, in July 2020, Boisvert filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, 
petition, seeking bail review.  In the petition he argued, among 
other things, that the cash bail amount of $30,000 was 
excessive; that the judge who reduced his bail to that amount 
failed to make specific written findings, or even oral findings, 
as Brangan requires, setting forth the reasons for setting bail 
in that amount; that denying without a hearing his subsequent 
bail requests (until his most recent COVID-19-based request) was 
a violation of his constitutional rights; and that his ongoing 
pretrial detention, which has now extended into its fifth year, 
was punitive and amounted to detention on the basis of 
dangerousness.  The single justice denied the petition without a 
hearing, and Boisvert appeals. 
 
 
"When a party appeals from an adverse judgment by the 
single justice under G. L. c. 211, § 3, we review the single 
justice's order for clear error of law or abuse of discretion."  
Brangan, supra at 697, and cases cited.  Additionally, where the 
petition concerns a request for bail relief, we also consider 
the propriety of the underlying bail order.  See id.  "In 
reviewing both the single justice's judgment and the bail 
3 
 
judge's order, we must consider the legal rights at issue and 
independently determine and apply the law, without deference to 
their respective legal rulings."  Id., citing The Boston Herald, 
Inc. v. Sharpe, 432 Mass. 593, 603 (2000). 
 
 
As the single justice noted, Boisvert was seeking to 
challenge, in his petition, both the initial and reduced cash 
bail amounts; the November 2019 decision denying a request for a 
bail review hearing (one of the several bail review requests 
that, as noted above, Boisvert filed and that was denied); and 
the over-all length of his pretrial detention.  The single 
justice rightly concluded that Boisvert did not articulate any 
changed circumstances that would warrant relief from the $30,000 
cash bail.  See G. L. c. 276, § 58, tenth par. ("if any court, 
in its discretion, finds that changed circumstances or other 
factors not previously known or considered, make the order of 
bail or recognizance ineffective to reasonably assure the 
appearance of said defendant before the court, the court may 
make a further order of bail"); see also Commesso v. 
Commonwealth, 369 Mass. 368, 374-375 (1975) (discussing "changed 
circumstances" in context of G. L. c. 276, § 58).  The single 
justice also noted that the length of Boisvert's pretrial 
detention was due at least in part to the fact that Boisvert has 
been unable to work cooperatively with any of the attorneys so 
far assigned to represent him (a point that Boisvert himself 
recognizes).  It was also, presumably, due in part to trial 
court closures stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.1 
 
 
That said, we do agree with Boisvert on one point:  the 
judge who reduced the cash bail from $100,000 to $30,000 should 
have made findings for that decision, but she did not; nor did 
she provide any explanation, either oral or written.  In 
Brangan, 477 Mass. at 693-694, we held that "where it appears 
that a defendant lacks the financial resources to post the 
amount of bail set, such that his indigency likely will result 
in a long-term pretrial detention, the judge must provide 
written or orally recorded findings of fact and a statement of 
reasons for the bail decision."  Such is the case here.  That 
 
1 To the extent that Boisvert now argues, in his appeal to 
this court, that the judge who considered his most recent motion 
for bail review, in April 2020, erred in denying the motion and 
in declining to release him pursuant to Committee for Pub. 
Counsel Servs. v. Chief Justice of the Trial Court (No. 1), 484 
Mass. 431 (2020), this was not an issue that he raised before 
the singe justice, and we need not address it.  See Carvalho v. 
Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1014 (2011). 
4 
 
the judge reduced the bail amount significantly does not relieve 
the judge of this responsibility, particularly where the reduced 
amount is still more than Boisvert could pay. 
 
Although the initial bail decision was made before this 
court decided Brangan, the bail reduction decision came after 
Brangan.  Indeed, Boisvert's counsel at the time specifically 
stated at the hearing that they were looking for a "Brangan-
type" hearing.  Boisvert has been detained for more than five 
years on a cash bail that he cannot afford to pay with no 
explanation as to why "alternative nonfinancial conditions" 
would not "adequately assure his appearance for trial."  
Brangan, 477 Mass. at 701.  He is entitled to clear 
consideration of that issue.  See Walsh v. Commonwealth, 485 
Mass. 567, 594 (2020) ("a judge should provide sufficient 
information to enable the parties and the appellate courts to 
recognize that the judge has undertaken the analysis required by 
our holding in Brangan and its codification in the bail statutes 
before imposing a bail that is beyond what a defendant can 
reasonably afford"). 
 
 
For these reasons, we remand the case to the county court 
for entry of an order directing the judge who made the bail 
reduction decision to make the required findings for that 
decision, pursuant to Brangan, or, should the judge choose to do 
so, to reconsider the decision and make any necessary 
accompanying findings.  In all other respects, the decision of 
the single justice is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
Sean Boisvert, pro se. 
 
Jane A. Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth.