Case Title: Christie v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12927

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2020-04-01T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12927 
 
GLENN CHRISTIE  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     March 31, 2020. - April 1, 2020. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, 
& Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Execution of sentence, Stay of 
proceedings. 
 
 
 
 
Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 
the county of Suffolk on March 17, 2020. 
 
 
A motion to stay execution of a sentence was heard by Budd, 
J., and the case subsequently was reported by her. 
 
 
 
David Rassoul Rangaviz, Committee for Public Counsel 
Services, for the petitioner. 
 
Sarah M. Joss, Special Assistant Attorney General, for 
Probation Service. 
 
David F. O'Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
Katharine Naples-Mitchell, for Mary T. Bassett & others, 
amici curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
GANTS, C.J.  The issue presented on appeal is whether the 
denial by a single justice of the Appeals Court of a motion to 
2 
 
stay execution of a sentence pending appeal before the Governor 
declared a state of emergency arising from the COVID-19 pandemic 
required a Superior Court judge to deny a subsequent motion to 
stay brought after the declaration.  We conclude that it does 
not:  the health risks to a person in custody caused by the 
pandemic constitute changed circumstances that require de novo 
review of the motion to stay.  We also conclude that, in 
conducting that de novo review, a judge must give careful 
consideration not only to the risks posed by releasing the 
defendant –- flight, danger to others or to the community, and 
likelihood of further criminal acts -- but also, during this 
pandemic, to the risk that the defendant might die or become 
seriously ill if kept in custody.1 
Background.  In 2007, the defendant was convicted on four 
indictments charging statutory rape, one indictment charging 
indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of 
fourteen, and one indictment charging dissemination of obscene 
material to a minor.  See Commonwealth v. Christie, 89 Mass. 
App. Ct. 665, 666 (2016).  The convictions on all but the 
dissemination charge were reversed on appeal, and the verdicts 
were set aside.  See id. at 676.  On remand to the Superior 
                     
1 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by ten public 
health experts. 
3 
 
Court, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape of a 
child and one count of indecent assault on a child under 
fourteen on June 19, 2018.  He was sentenced to time served in 
prison and was placed on probation for ten years.  On April 29, 
2019, a Superior Court judge found that the defendant committed 
technical violations of his conditions of his probation, 
specifically missing a meeting with his probation officer, being 
temporarily suspended from his sex offender treatment program, 
and failing to comply with global positioning system monitoring.  
The judge revoked his probation and sentenced him to from one to 
two years in State prison.  He is currently serving that 
sentence at the Massachusetts Treatment Center (treatment 
center), a medium security prison operated by the Department of 
Correction. 
In November 2019, the defendant filed a motion to 
reconsider the revocation or, alternatively, to stay his 
sentence pending appeal.  The judge denied that motion on 
February 14, 2020.  His appeal from that denial is now pending 
in the Appeals Court.  The defendant then sought a stay of his 
sentence pending appeal from a single justice of the Appeals 
Court, who denied the motion on February 26, 2020. 
On March 10, 2020, the Governor declared a state of 
emergency throughout the Commonwealth in response to the spread 
of COVID-19, a particularly virulent and dangerous coronavirus.  
4 
 
See Executive Order No. 591.  The next day, the World Health 
Organization declared COVID-19 to be a global pandemic.  On 
March 17, because of the pandemic, this court closed court 
houses to the public except to conduct emergency hearings that 
cannot be resolved through a video conference or telephonic 
hearing. 
That same day, the defendant filed an emergency petition in 
the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, seeking 
immediate release from custody based on the changed 
circumstances arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that he 
is fifty-four years old and suffers from chronic medical 
conditions that place him at particular risk of serious illness 
or death were he to contract the virus.  A single justice denied 
the petition, where the defendant had not sought this relief 
from a judge in the Superior Court.  The defendant subsequently 
filed an emergency motion for immediate release in the Superior 
Court, which a judge (who was not the sentencing judge) denied 
following a hearing on March 23.  The defendant then renewed his 
petition under G. L. c. 211, § 3, before the single justice, who 
reserved and reported the case to the full court. 
Discussion.  1.  COVID-19.  COVID-19 is a respiratory 
illness caused by a novel coronavirus.  While some patients with 
COVID-19 develop mild respiratory illness, others develop severe 
complications, such as pneumonia in both lungs, multi-organ 
5 
 
failure, and in some cases death.  COVID-19 is a particular risk 
to older adults and to individuals with underlying health 
conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and 
chronic respiratory disease. 
Prevention of COVID-19 is highly dependent on physical 
social distancing (i.e., remaining at least six feet apart from 
other people), as well as frequent hand-washing and sanitizing.  
Persons who have been exposed to someone who has or may have 
COVID-19 have been asked by international, Federal, and State 
authorities to self-isolate for at least two weeks following the 
potential exposure in order to slow the spread of the virus. 
The United States Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention has issued guidance on the management of COVID-19 in 
correctional facilities, discussing the "unique challenges for 
control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained 
persons, staff, and visitors."  See Interim Guidance on 
Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 
Correctional and Detention Facilities (Mar. 23, 2020), 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-
detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html 
[https://perma.cc/KY9V-TS9K].  If a virus as contagious as 
COVID-19 were to enter a correctional facility, the risk of 
transmission is high.  Incarcerated individuals often bunk in 
the same cell or unit and cannot realistically maintain adequate 
6 
 
social distancing.  Indeed, when this emergency motion to renew 
the petition for relief was filed in the county court on March 
24, 2020, there were already four confirmed cases of COVID-19 at 
the treatment center.  By the time the defendant filed his reply 
brief two days later, the number had almost tripled to eleven 
cases.  As of the date of hearing, that number had again 
increased to seventeen. 
The defendant suffers from multiple chronic medical 
conditions, including nephropathy, hypothyroidism, and thyroid 
cancer.  He also has limited mobility due to spinal issues and 
relies on a wheelchair.  He, therefore, is at heightened risk of 
serious illness or death if he were to contract the virus. 
2.  Stay of execution pending appeal.  Under Mass. R. Crim. 
P. 31 (a), as appearing in 454 Mass. 1501 (2009), a defendant 
sentenced to a term of imprisonment may seek a stay of execution 
pending appeal.  The stay may be sought from the judge who 
imposed the sentence or, pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 6, as 
appearing in 481 Mass. 1608 (2019), from a single justice of the 
court that will hear the appeal.  Mass. R. Crim. P. 31 (a).  The 
decision whether to grant a stay is within the sound discretion 
of the judge or justice.  Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 2), 456 
Mass. 128, 132 (2010). 
When considering the merits of a motion to stay the 
execution of a sentence, a judge should consider two factors.  
7 
 
First is whether the appeal presents "an issue which is worthy 
of presentation to an appellate court, one which offers some 
reasonable possibility of a successful decision in the appeal."  
Commonwealth v. Allen, 378 Mass. 489, 498 (1979), quoting 
Commonwealth v. Levin, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 501, 504 (1979).  See 
Cohen, 456 Mass. at 132.  Second, the judge should consider "the 
possibility of flight to avoid punishment; potential danger to 
any other person or to the community; and the likelihood of 
further criminal acts during the pendency of the appeal."  
Commonwealth v. Hodge (No. 1), 380 Mass. 851, 855 (1980). 
The power to stay a sentence pending appeal "may be 
exercised by the sentencing judge, by a single justice of the 
Appeals Court, or by a single justice of this court."  Allen, 
378 Mass. at 496.  "Each judge or Justice has the power to 
consider the matter anew, taking into account facts newly 
presented, and to exercise his [or her] own judgment and 
discretion."  Id.  In this case, a Superior Court judge and a 
single justice of the Appeals Court denied the defendant's 
motions to stay his sentence on February 14 and February 26, 
respectively, based on the information that was available at the 
time, before the COVID-19 pandemic had reached Massachusetts. 
On March 23, when a different Superior Court judge denied 
the defendant's motion for immediate release or, alternatively, 
a stay of execution of the sentence, the COVID-19 pandemic had 
8 
 
taken hold in the Commonwealth, resulting in the Governor's 
order of a state of emergency.  Although it is not entirely 
clear from his order, the judge appears to have understood that 
he did not have the authority to reconsider the defendant's 
motion to stay the execution of his sentence because a single 
justice of the Appeals Court had already denied that request one 
month earlier. 
If there had been no change in circumstances, the judge 
would have been correct.  However, because of the arrival of the 
COVID-19 pandemic in Massachusetts, the exponential spread of 
the virus, and the particular danger of transmission of the 
virus to persons in custody who cannot realistically engage in 
social distancing, a fundamental change in circumstances had 
occurred between the date when the single justice denied the 
motion (February 26) and the date when the judge decided the new 
motion to stay (March 23).  Therefore, it was error for the 
judge not to reconsider the defendant's motion to stay execution 
of sentence in light of the rapidly changing situation arising 
from the COVID-19 pandemic.  We therefore remand this matter to 
the Superior Court to permit such reconsideration. 
We also note that the health risks to persons in custody 
arising from this pandemic require that we adjust the analysis 
applied to motions to stay the execution of sentence pending 
appeal.  In ordinary times, in considering the second factor, a 
9 
 
judge should focus on the danger to other persons and the 
community arising from the defendant's risk of reoffense.  See 
Cohen, 456 Mass. at 132; Hodge, 380 Mass. at 855.  In these 
extraordinary times, a judge deciding whether to grant a stay 
should consider not only the risk to others if the defendant 
were to be released and reoffend, but also the health risk to 
the defendant if the defendant were to remain in custody.  In 
evaluating this risk, a judge should consider both the general 
risk associated with preventing COVID-19 transmission and 
minimizing its spread in correctional institutions to inmates 
and prison staff and the specific risk to the defendant, in view 
of his or her age and existing medical conditions, that would 
heighten the chance of death or serious illness if the defendant 
were to contract the virus. 
In addition to those factors, in this particular case, it 
is important that the judge give careful consideration to the 
circumstances under which the defendant would quarantine if he 
were to be released.  The defendant proffers that a friend has 
agreed to house him if he were to be released from custody, 
despite the risk that the defendant might have been exposed to 
the COVID-19 virus.  On remand, the defendant should address 
questions raised during the appellate oral argument regarding 
the actual availability of such a residence where he might be 
safely quarantined and the suitability of such a residence if it 
10 
 
were available.  The facts regarding these matters were not 
fully developed at the time of oral argument and should be 
presented more fully to the motion judge.  The motion judge 
should recognize that, because of the pandemic, and because time 
is of the essence, it may not be realistic to conduct the usual 
due diligence to provide assurances of availability and 
suitability, but that should not prevent the judge from relying 
on the information that reasonably can be provided under the 
circumstances. 
Conclusion.  For the reasons stated, we vacate the judge's 
denial of the defendant's motion for reconsideration of a stay 
pending appeal and remand the matter to the Superior Court for 
proceedings consistent with this opinion.  A hearing on the 
remanded motion shall be conducted in the Superior Court within 
forty-eight hours of the issuance of this decision. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.