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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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

- 1 2 395
J.H. vs . COMMONWEALT H .

Suffolk. December 7, 2017.

- April 12 , 2018. Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.

Juvenile Court , Delinquent child. Practice, Criminal , Juvenile delinquency proceeding, Transfer hearing, Lesser included offense, Delay in commencement of prosecution. Due Process of Law , Notice. Notice
. Rape .

C ivil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on July 3, 2017.
The case was reported by Lenk , J.

Thomas A. Dougherty , III , for the j uvenile. Stacey L. Gauthier , Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Afton M. Templin , for Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Service, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

KAFKER , J. A single justice of the county court reserved and reported this case involving the transfer of certain charges from the Juvenile Court to adult court pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 72A
. In September, 2014 , juvenile delinquency complaints were2

issued against the d efendant fo r the crime of rape of a child with force (three counts) arising out of incidents that occurred
seven years e arlier when the defendant was sixteen years old and the complainant was thirteen years old
. Because the defendant
was not " apprehended " according to the statute until after his nine teenth birthday, he could not be tried in the J uvenile
C ourt. The judge was faced with discharging the defendant or transferring the charge s to adult court . After a hearing she dismissed the offense s charged f or lack of probable cause but transferred the lesser included offense s , statutory rape . The defendant filed a petition for relief in the county court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3
. In her reserv ation and report , the single justice posed two questions to the full court :

" 1. Whether G. L. c. 119, § 72A, permits a Juvenile Court judge, who has dismissed an offense charged for lack of probable cause, to order a defendant to be tried in an adult court for lesser included offenses, where the lesser included offenses are supported by probable cause.

" 2. Whether, if the statute so permits, its application against this defendant would be unconstitutional for failure to have provided him with proper notice of the charges pending against him or the possibility of such a transfer. " We conclude that G. L. c. 119, § 72A , permits a Juvenile Court judge to transfer lesser included offenses where supported by probable cause even where lesser included offenses a re not expressly charged
. In instances where a judge fi nds no probable3

cause of the crime charge d but does find probable cause of a lesser included offense, however, the judge must give a defendant a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and argument as to why discharge, rather than transfer, of the
lesse r included offense is consistent with protection of the public. We also emphasize that whe re the charged offense is
rape of a child with force and the lesser included offense is statutory rape involving consensual sexual relations between teenagers, the issues presented regarding transfer or discharge
and the protection of the public are quite different.
Here , where the judge did n ot inform the defendant of her probable cause rulings on the offense s charged or the lesser included offense s until her decision on the transfer itself, we conclude that the defendant was not given a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and argument why discharge and
not transfer of the statutory rape charges was consistent with protection of the public. The defendant is therefore entitled to reopen the transfer hearing in order to present such evidence and argument
. Last ly , we conclude that there is no merit to the
defendant 's conten tion in post hearing briefing that the seven

year delay in prosecution was done in bad faith. 1

1 We acknowledge the amicus brief submitted by the youth advocacy division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services.4

1. Background and prior proceedings
. In June and July of 2007, the defendant was sixteen years old and the complainant was thirteen years old
. A s summarized by the Juvenile C ourt judge at the transfer hearing , the c omplainant described three incidents in detail , in which she alleged that she and the d efendant engaged in sexual intercourse.
In October , 2007, the investigation was referred to the Plymouth C ounty d istrict a ttorney ' s office. The complainant ' s mother advised the d istrict a ttorney ' s office that the complainant did not wish to participate in a prosecution at that time. As a result, the inve stigation was closed. The investigation was re opened in April , 2009, when the complainant was fifteen years old . At that time, the complainant agreed to participate in a sexual assault interview
. The complainant again decided not to pursue the matter because she thought that the defendant " eventually wanted to be with [her], and at that time [that] is what [she] wanted " and " didn ' t want [the defendant] to be in any trouble. " In 2014, the investigation was r eopened for the third time , when the complainant, then twenty years old , presented herself at the Middleborough police department and indicated a desire to go forward with the case. The defendant was not apprehended , for the purposes of
G. L. c. 119, § 72A, until 201 4 , when he was twenty

- three years5

old
. C omplaint s issued in the Plymouth County Division of the Juvenile Court Department against the defendant for three counts of rape of a child with force in violation of G. L. c. 2 65, § 22A. The defendant was subsequently arraigned on the complaints in the Juvenile Court. In 2016, pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 72A, a judge in the Juvenile Court held a transfer hearing. The complainant testified as described above. After the evidence had closed, the prosecution conceded that there was insufficient evidence of force on only one of the charges and sought, for the first time, a probable cause finding and transfer of the lesser included offense of rape of a child (statut ory rape). The defendant objected.
In the defendant ' s argument against transfer , which was focused on disproving the element of force , defense counsel objected to the lesser included charge being considered where the Commonwealth had not charged him with statutory rape
. He argued:

" I don ' t have a lesser included offense in fro nt of me of the statutory rape, and this is a probable cause hearing. And I ' m not sure that the [c] ourt can modify the complaints at this time to include a lesser included offense of statutory rape. The Commonwealth could have [ plead ed] that but didn ' t. They could have amended over the last two years or actually since 2007 but didn ' t. They elected to proceed, your Honor, with these p articular charges, and I would argue I think the [c] ourt may be bound by what it has on the four corners before it. "6

At the conclusion of his argument , defense counsel returned briefly to the issue of statutory rape as a lesser included
offense . He argued that there was no probable cause to support a finding of statutory rape, and if the judge found that there was, the judge should nevertheless discharge the defendant and
not cause a criminal complaint to issue, as the defendant and the complainant w ere both just teenagers " experimenting with their sexuality
. " Without addressing the objection or otherwise alerting the defendant that she intended to consider the lesser included offenses, the judge thereafter issued a decision in which she found insuff icient evidence to establish probable cause for rape of a child with force on any of the charges but found sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for statutory rape on all three charges. She also found that it was in the public interest that the defendant be tried for such offenses , concluding that " [ t ] he nature of a complaint for rape and abuse of a minor militates in favor of binding the [d] efendant over for trial as an adult "
. She then dismissed the juvenile complaints and bound the defendant over for trial in adult c ourt for the lesser included offenses of statutory rape. 2. Discussion
. a. Transfer of a lesser included offense not expressly charged
. General Laws c. 119, § 72A, provides:7

" If a person commits an offense or violation prior to his eighteenth birthday, and is not apprehended until after his nineteenth birthday, the court, after a hearing, shall determine whether there is probable cause to believe that said person committed the offense charged, and shall, in its discretion, eit her order that the person be discharged, if satisfied that such discharge is consistent with the protection of the public; or, if the court is of the opinion that the interests of the public require that such person be tried for such offense or violation i nstead of being discharged, the court shall dismiss the delinquency complaint and cause a criminal complaint to be issued. The case shall thereafter proceed according to the usual course of criminal proceedings and in accordance with the provisions of [G. L. c. 218, § 30 , ] and [G. L. c. 278, § 18]
. Said hearing shall be held prior to, and separate from, any trial on the merits of the charges alleged. " The defendant argues that G. L. c. 119, § 72A , does not allow the transfer of a lesser included offense that was not charged in the complaint. We disagree. It is well established that statutory rape is a lesser included offense of rape of a child with force. See Commonwealth v. Thayer , 418 Mass. 130, 132 (1994) ( " statutory rape in G. L. c. 265, § 23, is a lesser included offense within the forcible rape of a child under sixteen years of age within
G. L. c. 265, § 22A " [footnote omitted] ); Commonwealth v. Licciardi , 387 Mass. 670, 673 (1982) ( jury " could return a verdict of guilty of statutory rape, a lesse r included offense within the rape indictments " ); Commonwealth v. Franks , 365 Mass. 74, 78 (1974) ( " crime of statutory rape
. . . is a crime included within the crime of forcible rape
. . . which was charged in the indictment " ); Commonwealth v. Harris , 74 Mass.8

App. Ct. 105, 110 (2009) ( " the crime with which the defendant was charged was rape of a child by force, as to which rape of a child is a lesser included offense " ). It is also well established that a defendant may be convicted of a lesser includ ed offense even if the lesser included offense is not expressly charged
. See , e.g. , Commonwealth v. Walker , 426 Mass. 301, 303 (1997) ; Commonwealth v. Keane , 41 Mass App Ct. 656 , 661 (1996)
. We have specifically applied these principles in the
transfer hearing and statutory rape context as well. I n Commonwealth v. Williams , 427 Mass. 59 , 59 (1998) , we held that a Superior Court judge could accept a guilty plea and impose a sentence on a lesser included offense of statutory rape where
the defendant ' s ca se was transferred from the Juvenile Court only on the greater and more serious offense of forcible rape.
We reasoned that even though the lesser included offense was not specifically charged, the " legislative intent that such lesser included offenses are part and parcel of the transfer hearing process may fairly be presumed
. " Id . at 62. We t herefore conclude in answer to the first reported q uestion that G. L.

c. 119, § 72A , permits a Juvenile Court judge, who has dismissed
offense s cha rged for lack of p robable cause , to cause a criminal complaint to be issued for lesser included offenses, wher e the lesser included offenses are supported by probable cause and the9

interests of the public require that the defendant be tried for the lesser included offenses
. b. Notice
. The second reported question asks us to address whether the transfer of lesser included offenses in this

case was unconstitutional because this defendant was not provided with " proper notice. " A s explained infra , we conclude that although the defendant had notice of the lesser included
offense s , he did not have a meaningful o pportunity to be heard
before the transfer occurred
. Individuals in the Juvenile Court have a constitutional due process right to " essential fairness. " Commonwealth v. Wayne
W ., 414 Mass. 2 1 8, 223 (1993). Included in that right is adequate notice
. In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1, 33 (1967) ; Commonwealth v. Olivo , 369 Mass. 62, 68 (1975) (form of notice provided must be reasonably calculated to give actual notice of proceed ings and opportunity to be heard )
. Here , the defendant

was on notice , as a matter of law , that statutory rape was a lesser included offense of rape of a child with force, and that lesser included offenses are " part and parcel " of the transfer process, and thus there was a possibility of transfer of the statutory rape charges
. Williams , 427 Mass. at 62 . See Franks , 365 Mass. at 78. This, however, is not the end of the inquiry
. As evidenced by this case, J uvenile C ourt judges must make difficult, discretionary decision s regarding whether to transfer10

an offense or dischar ge a defendant. These decision s require consideration of the specific crime and the particular
defendant. A thoughtful presentation by defense counsel directed at both issues is thus critical
. See J.D. Blitzman &
K.J. King, Hearings Pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 72A: "Aging Out" of the System, in 1 Massachusetts Juvenile Court Bench Book § 12, at 12

- 11 (Mass. Cont. Legal Educ. 3d ed. 2011 & Supp. 2014) ( " [Advocates] must provide the court with adequate information to place the alleged offending behavior into a developmental context and to allow the court to understand how, if at all, the defendant ' s more mature development reduces the risk of reoffense. A reliable determination of the significant issues that confront a judge in proceedings under this statute can be made only if all relevant developmental and contextual evidence is before the court " ). Proper no tice is essential to such a presentation. Se e Commonwealth v. Bousquet , 407 Mass. 854, 860 & n.3 (1990) ( transfer proper where counsel on notice of nature of hearing and " had a sufficient basis to conclude that the interests of the public required transfer " ). We therefore conclude that where a judg e finds no probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime charged, but does find probable cause to believe the defendant committed a lesser included offense, the judge must provid e the defendant notice of
that decision and give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to11

present evidence and argument as to why discharge of the
defendant is consistent with the protection of the public and
thus transfer of the lesser included offenses is not required. In the instant case , the issue of lesser included offenses was not raised by the prosecutor until after the close of evidence and only after conceding that there was insufficient evidence of force on one of the charges . The defendant objected to this development , and the judge d id not address the objection

or state her view regarding whether she would consider transferring only the lesser included offenses until she issued her decision. Consequently , when de fense counsel made his argument regarding tran sfer , he was not informed that the judge had decided that there was not probable cause to support the
rape of a child with force charge s but that there was probable cause to support the lesser included offense s of statutory rape. As we conclude that t he defend ant is entitled to be so notified in order to be given a meaningful opportunity to present evidence and argument directed at why transfer of the lesser included offense s of statutory rape was not required, we reverse and remand. The specific facts and cr imes at issue reveal the importance of such notice and opportunity to be heard
. The protection of the public " interests " analysis differs significantly for rape of a child with force and statutory rape12

when considering teenage sexual activity. A teenager who forcibly rapes another presents a greater public safety risk than a teenager engaged in consensual sexual activity with a
peer. 2 As sexual activity among teenagers is common, even the original decision to prosecute often depends on whether the
sexual activity is consensual or coerced
. 3

2 Compare Commonwealth v. Sullivan , 78 Mass. App. Ct. 631, 631

– 632 (2011) (teenage victim forcibly raped by teenage codefendant while teenage defendant held victim down by her shoulder s) , with Doe v. Attorney General , 430 Mass. 155, 164 (1999) (in cases involving consensual sexual activity between teenagers and requirement of sex offender registration, State's interest in protecting children not as great because risk of reoffense may be minimal and present danger not significant).

3 See generally Commonwealth v. Bernardo B ., 453 Mass. 158, 161 (2009) (emphasizing in statutory rape case that "Commonwealth has broad discretion in deciding whether to prosecute a case"). See Center s for D isease Control and Prevention , Substance Use and Sexual Risk Behaviors Among Teens (2017), https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/substance

- use/pdf/dash

substance

- use - fact

- sheet.pdf [ https://perma.cc/Z4H6

- TL9P] ("According to the 2015 National Youth Risk Behavio r Survey

. . . [forty

- one per cent] of high school students have
. . . had intercourse and [thirty per cent] of high school students are currently sexually active"). See also High, Good, Bad and Wrongful Juvenile Sex: Rethinking the Use of Statutory Rape Laws Against the Protected Class, 69 Ark. L. Rev. 787, 808 (201 6 ) (describing common practice of "prosecutorial discretion . . . exercised to exclude sexual activity among adolescents from the reach of legal regulation unless it appears to be exploita tive"); Oberman, Regulating Consensual Sex with Minors: Defining a Role for Statutory Rape, 48 Buff. L. Rev. 703, 750 (2000) (describing "an apparent consensus among prosecutors against enforcement of statutory rape laws in cases of 'consensual sexual rel ationships' among peers").13

The ju dge ' s decision finding no probable cause of rape of a child with force, but probable cause of statutory rape, therefore fundamentally changed th e protection of the public

" interests " calculus. Further complicating the public interest analysis in the context of consensual teenage sexual relations , the complainant ' s own decision to proceed expressly depended at least at one point on whether the defendant " event ually wanted to be with [her]
. " Fina lly , if t he defendant were tried as an
adult seven years after the offense , the consequences of a statutory rape conviction would not be a finding of delinquency but the possibility of a life felony. Both the defense counsel and the judge should have been carefully focused on all of these issues. Without having the benefit of the judge ' s decision on probable cause, however, defense counsel chose to focus his argument on the more serious cha rge s of rape, for which he had a strong defense. 4 Indeed , defens e co unsel address ed the lesser

4 For the defendant, the case also changed dramatically once the prosecutor sought to transfer statutory rape as well as rape of a child with force charges. The defendant had not testified at the hearing. On the issue of force , the defendant could rely on the complainant's testimony alone, which described none. But once the prosecution expressed its intentions to proceed on statutory rape charge s , the defendant was in an evidentiary bind. With statutory rape charges being sou ght, the complainant's testimony was now sufficient and unrebutted. That being said, the complainant's testimony alone provided probable cause to proceed on the statutory rape charge s . The difficult14

included offense s of statutory rape only in passing, including
the critical and complicated discretionary issue whether the court should discharge the defendant, even if there was probable cause to support the lesser included offense s . In sum, the defendant is entitled to reopen the transfer proceedings to present evidence and argument on whether discharge is consistent with the protection of the public.

c. Delay in apprehension . In post hearing briefing requested by the parties and allowed by the judge, the defendant argued that the delay in prosecuting the case was " done in bad faith. " As we discern no indicia of bad faith from this record, and the timing of the prosecution appears directly connected to the complainant ' s willingness to proceed, we conclude that this argument has no merit. See Commonwealth v. Mogelinski , 473 Mass. 164, 171

- 172 (2015). 3. Conclusion
. For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the judge did not err in determining that , lesser included offense s could be transferred under G. L. c. 119, § 72A , and that the defendant was on notice as a matter of law that such a transfer was a possibility
. We conclude, however, that where a judge finds no probable cause of the crime charged, but does find probabl e cause of a lesser included offense, the

issue , requiring further proceedings, is not probable c ause but the discretionary decision to transfer or discharge.15

judge must give the defendant a meaningful opportunity to
addres s why discharge rather than transfer of the lesser included offense is consistent with the protection of the public, and that such opportunity was not provided here.
We remand the matter to the sin gle justice of the county
court where an order of remand to the Juvenile Court shall issue for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered
.