Case Title: Pinney v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-13100

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2021-07-01T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13100 
 
FREDERICK PINNEY  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
July 1, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Evidence, Buccal swab.  Practice, Criminal, Discovery. 
 
 
The defendant, Frederick Pinney, appeals from a judgment of 
a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.1  We affirm. 
 
Pinney stands indicted for murder.  After his first trial 
ended in a mistrial, Pinney successfully obtained suppression of 
a preindictment buccal swab obtained by the Commonwealth.  See 
Commonwealth v. Pinney, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 392, 393 (2020).  The 
Commonwealth subsequently moved to obtain a postindictment 
buccal swab from Pinney, which the Superior Court allowed.  
Pinney sought relief in the county court, and a single justice 
of this court denied relief, in pertinent part, because the 
motion judge's decision was a "routine discovery ruling," and 
Pinney therefore "has an adequate alternative remedy in that he 
can raise the issue of the propriety of the order compelling the 
production of the buccal swab in a direct appeal, should he be 
convicted." 
 
 
 
1 The petition was originally filed as an application for 
leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Mass. R. 
Crim. P. 15 (a) (2).  A single justice's denial of such an 
application is not appealable.  See Commonwealth v. Santry, 469 
Mass. 1001, 1001 (2014); Cowell v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1028, 
1028 (2000).  However, the single justice treated the petition 
as one pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and we do the same. 
2 
 
 
 
The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as 
amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a petitioner 
seeking relief from an interlocutory ruling of the trial court 
to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision 
cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse 
judgment in the trial court or by other available means."  
Pinney has failed to demonstrate the lack of an adequate remedy 
on direct appeal.  As to that issue, Pinney argues that "[i]t 
would be fundamentally unfair to require [him] to go through a 
second trial that is infected from the outset with reversible 
error."  It is well settled, however, that petitions for 
extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, are not 
substitutes for the normal trial and appellate process.  And we 
have repeatedly stated that "[d]iscovery matters such as this 
are routinely addressed on direct appeal."  Martinez v. 
Commonwealth, 475 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2016), citing Deming v. 
Commonwealth, 438 Mass. 1007, 1007 (2002).  See generally 
Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24-25 (2019).  "If 
[Pinney] is convicted of any offense, he will have the 
opportunity to raise his issues in the ordinary appellate 
process."  Martinez, supra. 
 
The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in 
denying relief. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
Linda J. Thompson & John M. Thompson for the petitioner.