Case Name: Commonwealth vs. Abimael Colon-Cruz (and two companion cases)
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1984-10-18
Citations: 393 Mass. 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: Commonwealth vs. Abimael Colon-Cruz (and two companion cases ).
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 393
Pages: 150–185

Head Matter:
Commonwealth vs. Abimael Colon-Cruz (and two companion cases ).
Worcester.
May 7, 1984.
October 18, 1984.
Present: Hennessey, C.J., Wilkins, Liacos, Abrams, Nolan, Lynch, & O’Connor, JJ.
Donald D. Deren for Miguel Angel Rosado.
Dennis J. Brennan for Jose Aníbal Colon.
Milton H. Raphaelson for Abimael Colon-Cruz.
Daniel F. Toomey, Assistant District Attorney (Harry D. Quick, III, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.
The following submitted briefs:
William D. Delahunt, District Attorney for the Norfolk District, amicus curiae.
Patricia A. O’Neill & Richard Zorza, for Massachusetts Defenders Committee, amicus curiae.
Newman Flanagan, District Attorney for the Suffolk District, & others, amici curiae.
Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General, Barbara A. H. Smith & Paul A. Lazour, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General, amicus curiae.
John A. Perkins, Allan van Gestel, Margaret R. Hinkle & Paul E. Nemser, for Boston Bar Association, amicus curiae.
John Reinstein, Max D. Stern, Ann Lambert Greenblatt, Alan J. Rom, Geraldine S. Hines & Judith Farris Bowman, for Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty & others, amici curiae.
Also known as Emilio Otero.
One is against Miguel Angel Rosado and one is against Jose Aníbal Colon, also known as Jose William Hernandez.

Opinion:
Liacos, J.
In District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, 381 Mass. 648 (1980), this court declared unconstitutional the capital punishment statute, c. 488 of the Acts of 1979. The court held that the penalty of death was impermissibly cruel under art. 26 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. That article then provided, in its entirety: "No magistrate or court of law, shall demand excessive bail or sureties, impose excessive fines, or inflict cruel or unusual punishments."
On November 2, 1982, the voters approved a constitutional amendment which added a second and third sentence to art. 26: "No provision of the Constitution, however, shall be construed as prohibiting the imposition of the punishment of death. The general court may, for the purpose of protecting the general welfare of the citizens, authorize the imposition of the punishment of death by the courts of law having jurisdiction of crimes subject to the punishment of death." Art. 116 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. This amendment had been adopted by joint sessions of the General Court in the years 1980 and 1982.
On December 15, 1982, both Houses of the General Court enacted c. 554 of the Acts of 1982, providing for capital punishment in certain cases of murder in the first degree. The act was approved by the Governor on December 22, 1982, and took effect on January 1, 1983, to apply to offenses committed on or after the effective date. St. 1982, c. 554, § 8.
On the evening of February 26, 1983, State Trooper George L. Hanna was found on Route 20 in Auburn, injured by multiple gunshot wounds. He was taken to St. Vincent Hospital in Worcester, where he died later that evening as a result of the wounds. Complaints accusing the three defendants of the murder of Hanna issued shortly thereafter from the Worcester District Court. On April 4, 1983, the Commonwealth filed notice in the Worcester District Court that it would present evidence in accordance with the provisions of c. 554 of the Acts of 1982, and that the defendants "may suffer the punishment of death" pursuant to the procedures provided for by that chapter. In June, 1983, a Worcester County grand jury indicted each of the defendants for Hanna's murder. The Commonwealth has indicated that these indictments will be tried separately. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
On November 15, 1983, after hearings on a series of pretrial motions in the Superior Court, the Commonwealth moved, in each case, to report to the Appeals Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 34,378 Mass. 905 (1979), two questions of law:
"A. Whether G.L. c. 265, S. 2 and G.L. c. 279, Sections 4, 57-71, as most recently amended by St. 1982, c. 554, S. 3-8, is in compliance with the Constitution of the United States.
"B. Whether G.L. c. 265, S. 2 and G.L. c. 279, Sections 4, 57-71, as most recently amended by St. 1982, c. 554, S. 3-8, is in compliance with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
The Superior Court judge allowed the motion in each case over the defendants' objections. From the evidence which he had received in connection with the pretrial motions and from the notice filed by the Commonwealth, the judge found that each defendant, if convicted, might be sentenced to death. He stated in each report that the question of the constitutionality of the death penalty statute was "so important... as to require the decision of the Appeals Court." Mass. R. Crim. P. 34. After the reports were entered in the Appeals Court, the Commonwealth applied to this court for direct appellate review, and we allowed the application. We answer question B, "No," on the ground that the statutory sections referred to in the question violate art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution by impermissibly burdening a defendant's right against self-incrimination and right to trial by jury. In view of our answer to question B, we need not answer question A.
The propriety of deciding the constitutionality of the questioned provisions at this time. In our order allowing the application for direct appellate review, we noted that "[bjriefs may discuss the question whether this court should at this time decide any issue concerning the constitutionality of G. L. c. 265, § 2, and G. L. c. 279, § 4, 57-71, as amended by St. 1982, c. 554." It is in this court's discretion to postpone decision of issues reported before trial until appellate review after trial, "where such action seems more appropriate as a matter of judicial administration." Commonwealth v. Benjamin, 358 Mass. 672, 673 n.1 (1971) (court, however, answered the questions reported). We recently discharged a report raising several constitutional questions because of our view that there was a preliminary question, not briefed, which should be decided before any constitutional issue was reached. Commonwealth v. Paasche, 391 Mass. 18, 21-22 (1984). There we stated that we do not decide constitutional questions unless they necessarily must be reached. Id. at 21.***
The parties have briefed and argued the question whether we should discharge the reports without decision. Both the Commonwealth and the defendants urge us to decide the reported questions now, in so far as they concern the facial validity of the provisions at issue. Although the defendants opposed the motions for report below because of the delay which would be occasioned in the commencement of their trials, their position now is that, since their trials already have been delayed by the reports, we should not render that delay useless by discharging the reported questions without decision.
"Interlocutory matters should be reported only where it appears that they present serious questions likely to be material in the ultimate decision, and that subsequent proceedings in the trial court will be substantially facilitated by so doing." Commonwealth v. Henry's Drywall Co., 362 Mass. 552, 557 (1972), quoting John Gilbert Jr. Co. v. C.M. Fauci Co., 309 Mass. 271, 273 (1941). Interlocutory reports, however, may be appropriate when the alternative is a prolonged, expensive, involved, or unduly burdensome trial. See Commonwealth v. Cavanaugh, 366 Mass. 277, 279 (1974).
We believe that the present case meets the criteria of appropriateness for an interlocutory report. The question of the constitutionality of the new death penalty legislation is one of substantial significance; indeed, it is one of public importance. See Commonwealth v. Haddad, 364 Mass. 795, 797 (1974). It is true that, if we declined to decide either of the reported questions at this stage of the proceedings, we might not have to decide them with respect to these three defendants. See District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, 381 Mass. 648, 673 (1980) (Wilkins, J., concurring). However, if we waited to decide the constitutionality of the death penalty legislation until the question had to be answered, the consequence would be prolonged, expensive, involved, and unduly burdensome trials for both the Commonwealth and the defense, not only in the case of each of these defendants, but also in every case arising in the meantime where the Commonwealth sought the death penalty, regardless of the eventual outcome of the case.****** Whether or not the constitutionality of the death penalty legislation would have been a material question in the ultimate decision in the case of any particular defendant, proceedings in the trial court in all cases where the death penalty would have been sought will be substantially facilitated by our entertaining the interlocutory reports.
As the Commonwealth points out, by deciding as we do in the context of a pretrial report rather than after a sentence of death has been imposed, we spare a defendant the hardships which inevitably attend incarceration pending execution of a death sentence. See District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, supra at 664-665. See also id. at 677, 678-679 n.5, 681,684-685 (Liacos, J., concurring). We also avoid the necessity of that defendant's having to be resentenced or perhaps even retried.
Finally, it is to be remembered that in District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, supra, we decided the constitutionality of this capital punishment statute's predecessor in a proceeding begun by the district attorney by means of a complaint for a declaratory judgment. Four men who were awaiting trial on first degree murder indictments which might subject them to the death penalty had been permitted to intervene as defendants in that case. Id. at 649-650. Although we acknowledged that declaratory relief will not be granted during the pendency of a criminal prosecution, absent very special circumstances, we concluded that the cases at bar were exceptional ones justifying declaratory relief "to prevent disruption of the orderly administration of criminal justice." Id. at 659-660. If the issue of the facial validity of a death penalty statute properly could be decided in the context of a civil action for a declaratory judgment, we see no reason why it should not be decided in the context of a criminal prosecution by means of the procedure provided for by Mass. R. Crim. P. 34.
The propriety of deciding the constitutionality of the questioned provisions under the Massachusetts Constitution. The Commonwealth maintains that art. 116 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution provides immunity for any capital punishment statute from invalidation under any article of the Massachusetts Constitution. According to the Commonwealth, then, art. 116 prevents this court from scrutinizing St. 1982, c. 554, under any provision of the Massachusetts Constitution. We disagree.
Initially, we consider the aims of art. 116 in light of the text and structure of the provision. See Buckley v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 371 Mass. 195, 199 (1976). As added by art. 116, the second sentence of art. 26 of the Declaration of Rights provides that no provision of the Massachusetts Constitution "shall be construed as prohibiting the imposition of the punishment of death."
"An amendment to the Constitution is a solemn and important declaration of fundamental principles of government. It is characterized by terse statements of clear significance. Its words were employed in a plain meaning to express general ideas. It was written to be understood by the voters to whom it was submitted for approval. It is to be interpreted in the sense most obvious to the common intelligence. Its phrases are to be read and construed according to the familiar and approved usage of the language." Yont v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 275 Mass. 365, 366-367 (1931).
Webster's New Int'l Dictionary 1978 (2d ed. 1959) defines "prohibit" as follows: "1. To forbid by authority or command; to interdict; as, the law prohibits the sale of opiates or men from selling opiates . . . . 2. To stop or prevent (a person); to render impossible (an action); to hinder; debar." The definition of "prohibit" given by Black's Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979) is " [t]o forbid by law; to prevent; — not synonymous with 'regulate. ' " We conclude that art. 26 now prevents this court from construing any provision of the Massachusetts Constitution, including art. 26 itself, as forbidding the imposition of the punishment of death. We do not, however, see anything in the new language of art. 26 which prevents us from invalidating a particular death penalty statute under the Massachusetts Constitution on a ground other than the imposition of the punishment of death is forbidden.
We do not consider that our invalidation of this statute is equivalent to prohibiting the imposition of the punishment of death. When, in Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 387 Mass. 567 (1982), we held that G. L. c. 94C, § 32 (a), was unconstitutionally vague and therefore was void, the Commonwealth lost the authority to execute the ten-year prison sentences which had been imposed on the defendants under that section. That result did not mean that we were construing either the United States Constitution or our own as prohibiting the imposition of ten-year sentences of imprisonment. Ten-year prison sentences are in themselves constitutional; the particular statutes which provide for them may be unconstitutional for a variety of reasons.
Our interpretation of the language of art. 116 is supported by its history, though that history is not controlling. See Buckley v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, supra at 200; Yont v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, supra at 369. As mentioned above, in 1980 a majority of this court ruled that the death penalty was impermissibly cruel under the then-existing version of art. 26. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, supra. In 1977 a majority of the Justices had given their opinion that the enactment of a death penalty bill pending before the Legislature — consisting of essentially the same substantive provisions as those later struck down in Watson — would violate art. 26. Opinions of the Justices, 372 Mass. 912 (1977). The Justices had stated that "art. 26 . . . forbids the imposition of a death penalty in this Commonwealth in the absence of a showing on the part of the Commonwealth that the availability of that penalty contributes more to the achievement of a legitimate State purpose — for example, the purpose of deterring criminal conduct — than the availability in like cases of the penalty of life imprisonment." Id. at 917. In view of this opinion, the Justices had found it unnecessary to state an opinion on the question whether the enactment of the bill would violate arts. 1, 10, and 12. Id. at 921.
The first joint session of the General Court to adopt art. 116 did so on September 19, 1980, while Watson was pending before this court. The amendment was adopted in joint session by the next General Court on June 21, 1982. The sparse history of this amendment in the General Court sheds little light on the purpose for which it was adopted by either joint session. Nothing in that legislative history, however, indicates any notion that the amendment would shield all death penalty legislation from review under the Massachusetts Constitution. Nothing in the legislative history contradicts the natural inference that art. 116 was principally designed to overrule this court's interpretation of art. 26 as forbidding the death penalty and to forestall the possibility that any other provision of the Constitution would be interpreted thus. See Bowe v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 320 Mass. 230, 241-243 (1946).
That inference is sustained by the summary of the proposed amendment which was circulated to the voters and was printed on the ballot in the manner required by the Massachusetts Constitution, art. 48, General Provisions III and IV of the Amendments, as amended by art. 74, § 4, and art. 108. That summary read: "The proposed constitutional amendment would allow the legislature to enact laws authorizing the state courts to impose the death penalty on the conviction of crimes to be specified by law. The proposed amendment would provide that no provision of the state constitution may in the future be construed as prohibiting the imposition of the punishment of death. A YES vote would change the state constitution to allow the State Legislature to authorize the death penalty for crimes. A NO vote would not change the present prohibition against the death penalty." Nothing in the arguments for and against the amendment circulated to the voters concerned the total insulation of death penalty legislation from constitutional review.
The words of an amendment "are to be construed in such way as to carry into effect what seems to be the reasonable purpose of the people in adopting them." Raymer v. Tax Comm'r, 239 Mass. 410, 412 (1921). The construction of art. 116 which the Commonwealth urges us to adopt would mean that a statute establishing the death penalty for members of one particular race only or providing for the imposition of the death penalty without trial would be valid under the Massachusetts Constitution. In the absence of any indication to the contrary in the language and history of the amendment, we cannot accept the Commonwealth's radical construction of art. 116 as carrying into effect the reasonable purpose of the people. See People v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 797, 806-809 (1982).
The unconstitutionality of the questioned provisions. The death penalty provisions enacted in St. 1982, c. 554, violate art. 12 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. They impermissibly burden both the right against self-incrimination and the right to a jury trial guaranteed by that article. We base this conclusion on the fact that according to the terms of St. 1982, c. 554, the death penalty may be imposed, if at all, only after a trial by jury. Those who plead guilty in cases in which death would be a possible sentence after trial thereby avoid the risk of being put to death. The inevitable consequence is that defendants are discouraged from asserting their right not to plead guilty and their right to demand a trial by jury. For this reason, the answer to reported question B must be that G. L. c. 265, § 2, and G. L. c. 279, § 4, 57- 71, as most recently amended by St. 1982, c. 554, § 3-8, are not in compliance with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Chapter 554 of the Acts of 1982 provides that the death penalty may be imposed in certain cases of murder in the first degree. The law of the Commonwealth allows a defendant to plead guilty to murder in the first degree. Commonwealth v. Balliro, 370 Mass. 585, 587 (1976). See G. L. c. 277, § 47; G. L. c. 263, § 6; Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 (a) (1), 378 Mass. 866 (1979). Of a predecessor of G. L. c. 263, § 6, the court said in 1866: "This explicit and unqualified enactment, which includes in its general language the crime of murder as well as all other offences, recognizes the rule which has always been the rule of the common law, that a party may be convicted on his own plea and confession in court, and that in such cases the intervention of a jury to determine his guilt is not necessary." Green v. Commonwealth, 12 Allen 155, 167 (1866). In Commonwealth v. Balliro, supra, we ruled that the amend ment of G. L. c. 265, § 2, by St. 1951, c. 203, to make a life sentence possible, in the jury's discretion, when a defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, did not expressly or impliedly repeal G. L. c. 277, § 47, or G. L. c. 263, § 6. Likewise, neither the amendment of G. L. c. 265, § 2, by St. 1982, c. 554, § 3, nor any other section of St. 1982, c. 554, expressly or impliedly repealed those statutes or overruled Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 (a) (1) or the common law.
If a defendant pleads guilty to murder in the first degree, he cannot be sentenced to death. As amended by St. 1982, c. 554, § 3, G. L. c. 265, § 2, provides in part: "Whoever is guilty of murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, and who had attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the murder, may suffer the punishment of death pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections sixty-eight to seventy-one, inclusive, of chapter two hundred and seventy-nine. Any other person who is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life." Gen eral Laws c. 279, § 68, inserted by St. 1982, c. 554, § 6, provides, in part: "In all cases in which a sentence of death may be imposed, the court shall submit to the jury special questions concerning the issue of murder in the first degree. If the jury determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree, the jury shall specify whether the defendant is guilty of murder with deliberate premeditation, murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or murder in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life, or two or more of these. Upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, or murder in the first degree with extreme atrocity or cruelty, a presentence hearing shall be conducted, unless the commonwealth stipulates that none of the aggravating circumstances as defined in paragraph (a) of section sixty-nine exists, before the jury before which the case was tried; provided, however, that if in the opinion of the judge presiding at the presentence hearing, it is impossible or impracticable for the trial jury to sit at the presentence hearing, a new jury shall be impanelled to sit at the presentence hearing. "
Section 68 goes on to describe the presentence hearing and the process by which the jury is either to find, or not to find, that the death penalty shall be imposed, including certain findings to be made by the jury with respect to aggravating or mitigating circumstances. General Laws c. 279, § 70, inserted by St. 1982, c. 554, § 6, in turn provides: "Where, upon a trial by jury, a person is convicted of a crime which is punishable by death, a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless findings in accordance with section sixty-eight are made. Where such findings are made and the jury finds that the death penalty shall be imposed, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. Where such findings are not made or not unanimously made or where a sentence of death is not a unanimous finding by the jury, the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment as provided in section two of chapter two hundred and sixty-five."
Section 70 makes it clear that where the sentencing jury does not find unanimously for death, or does not make unani mously the other findings required by § 68, the death penalty may not be imposed. In turn, § 68 makes clear the condition precedent to the presentence hearing on the basis of which the sentencing jury is to make these findings. That condition precedent is a verdict by the trial jury of guilty of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation or with extreme atrocity or cruelty. If there is no trial jury, there can be no such verdict and therefore no presentence hearing and no sentence of death.
The Commonwealth argues that it was the intent of the Legislature that where a judge has approved a guilty plea to a charge of capital murder in the first degree, and thus there has been no trial or trial jury, a jury is to be empanelled to sit at a presentence hearing and to make a determination as to whether the death penalty shall be imposed. The Commonwealth relies in this argument on the provision in § 68 for the empanelment of "a new jury" to sit at the presentence hearing where, in the opinion of the judge, "it is impossible or impracticable for the trial jury to sit at the presentence hearing." We find this argument strained. A statute is to be interpreted according to the plain and ordinary meaning of its words and their ordinary and approved usage. Rambert v. Commonwealth, 389 Mass. 771, 773 (1983). Commonwealth v. Galvin, 388 Mass. 326, 328 (1983). It is most doubtful that the Legislature would have referred to "the trial jury" or "a new jury" (emphasis supplied) in a provision which was meant to apply where there had been no trial jury. Also, if there had been no trial jury, the opinion of a judge would not be required as to the impos sibility or.impracticability of the trial jury's sitting at the pre-sentence hearing.
The Commonwealth overlooks two other aspects of § 68 which preclude the interpretation which it urges on us. First, whether the trial jury or a new jury sits at the presentence hearing, the condition precedent to the presentence hearing is "a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, or . . . with extreme atrocity or cruelty" (emphasis supplied). Id. For there to have been such a verdict, there must have been a trial by jury. Finally, the Commonwealth overlooks the first sentence of § 68, which provides that "[i]n all cases in which a sentence of death may be imposed, the court shall submit to the jury special questions concerning the issue of murder in the first degree." That sentence contemplates that in all cases where a sentence of death is possible, there will be a trial jury. In other words, where there is no trial jury, there can be no sentence of death.
"Every rational presumption in favor of [a statute's] validity must be indulged, and it will not be denounced as contrary to the Constitution unless its language is so clear and explicit as to render impossible any other reasonable construction." Commonwealth v. O'Neil, 233 Mass. 535, 540-541 (1919). The language in St. 1982, c. 554, is so clear and explicit that we are unable to accept the Commonwealth's interpretation of it as providing for the empanelment of a jury to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed on those who plead guilty. We are precluded from accepting it not only by the language of c. 554 itself, but also by G. L. c. 277, § 47, which provides that one who pleads guilty to a capital crime shall be sentenced by the court.
In Letters v. Commonwealth, 346 Mass. 403 (1963), the trial judge had threatened to impose harsher sentences if the defendants were found guilty at trial than if they pleaded guilty. This court expunged the defendants' guilty pleas and reversed the judgments against them, stating that a defendant may not be punished for exercising his right to trial. Id. at 405. We said: "No matter how heinous the offense charged, how overwhelming the proof of guilt may appear, or how hopeless the defense, a defendant's right to continue with his trial may not be violated. His constitutional right to require the Government to proceed to a conclusion of the trial [and] to establish guilt by independent evidence should not be exercised under the shadow of a penalty . To impose upon a defendant such alternatives [a plea of guilty or the prospect of an unduly harsh sentence in the event of conviction] amounts to coercion as a matter of law." Id. at 406, quoting United States v. Toteo, 214 F. Supp. 560, 567 (S.D.N.Y. 1963).
Recently, we have held that to allow a trial judge to consider, in sentencing, his belief that a defendant lied in his defense at trial impermissibly burdens a defendant's right not to plead guilty and to testify. See Commonwealth v. Souza, 390 Mass. 813, 818 (1984); Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 808 (1984). We so held as matter of State law, declining to follow United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 54-55 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court held that such conduct by a trial judge does not violate the Federal Constitution. See Souza, supra at 817-818; Coleman, supra at 807-808. See also id. at 804 & n.7.
We conclude that, if a judge may not penalize a defendant for asserting his right to trial or his right not to plead guilty by imposing a harsher sentence than he otherwise would have, neither may the Legislature authorize such penalization by such legislation as St. 1982, c. 554. This conclusion is supported by analogy to United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), in which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional the death penalty clause of the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (a) (1964). Under that clause, in an interstate kidnapping case where the victim had not been liberated unharmed, the trial jury, and only the trial jury, could cause the defendant to be sentenced to death. A defendant who pleaded guilty or waived trial by jury could therefore avoid the risk of being put to death. The Supreme Court held that this scheme needlessly chilled the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Whatever the power of Congress to impose a death penalty for violation of the Federal Kidnaping Act, it could not do so in this manner. Id. at581-583. See also State v. Frampton, 95 Wash. 2d 469, 478 (1981), where the court stated: "Where, pursuant to statutory procedure, the death penalty is imposed upon conviction following a plea of not guilty and a trial, but is not imposed when there is a plea of guilty, that statute is unconstitutional." A similar result was reached in Spillers v. State, 84 Nev. 23 (1968). In Spillers, the Nevada Supreme Court, relying on United States v. Jackson, 262 F. Supp. 716 (D. Conn. 1967), rev'd on other grounds, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), ruled that the penalty scheme of Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.360(1) was unconstitutional in that it impermissibly burdened the defendant's right to trial by jury, since a death penalty would be imposed only as a result of a jury verdict of guilty of rape. The Nevada court rested its decision on both the State Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The General Court may not authorize the imposition of the death penalty in a way which needlessly chills defendants' art. 12 rights. Accordingly, the answer to reported question B is that G. L. c. 265, § 2, and G. L. c. 279, § 4, 57-71, as most recently amended by St. 1982, c. 554, § 3-8, are not in compliance with the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
We ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutionally cruel when judged by contemporary standards of decency and also that it was unconstitutionally cruel because of its arbitrary and discriminatory administration. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, supra at 650, 665.
The defendants, pursuant to Mass. R. A. P. 16 (j), 365 Mass. 860 (1974), have filed a joint brief before this court. In addition to the briefs of the parties, we have had the benefit of numerous briefs amici curiae: Massachusetts Defenders Committee; Boston Bar Association; Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty, and other interested organizations; Attorney General; district attorney for the Norfolk District; district attorneys for the districts of Suffolk, Plymouth, Berkshire, Hampden, and the Cape and Islands District. We heard oral argument from the parties on May 7,1984.
See, however, our comment in note 33, infra, as to one argument based on Federal constitutional grounds. We add that we consider the partial summary of other areas of constitutional concern by the Chief Justice, in his concurring opinion, to be helpful in that his comments and suggestions may alert the Legislature to other issues it may wish to consider, should it decide to take further legislative action. As to the dissent of Justice Nolan, who states in his concluding comment that "it is regrettable that the court, having decided to take the case before trial, has responded to only one of the arguments," post 184, we note two points. At the outset of his dissent, Justice Nolan chides the court for addressing the issue "prematurely." This comment seems implicitly inconsistent with his remark that the court should have considered the other issues in the case. Justice Nolan's position also overlooks two fundamental principles of appellate review. First, a court should only consider the issue dispositive of the matter before it. Attorney Gen. v. Dover, 327 Mass. 601, 608 (1951). See Opinion of the Justices, 372 Mass. 912, 921 (1977). Second, it is hard to see how Justice Nolan can reach the conclusion that the statute is valid without consideration by him of all the arguments as to its unconstitutionality. See Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. 252 (1815).
In spite of the reluctance to decide constitutional questions, unless necessary, which we expressed in Commonwealth v. Paasche, supra, and on many other occasions, we have decided constitutional questions reported before trial on numerous occasions in the past. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Fitta, 391 Mass. 394 (1984); Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171 (1983).
Some of the arguments advanced in the defendants' briefs and in the briefs of certain amici curiae concern the constitutionality of St. 1982, c. 554, as applied. Both the wording and the timing of the questions reported by the Superior Court judge indicate that he meant those questions to concern only the facial constitutionality of the provisions cited. Since there is no factual record in this case, no issue as to the constitutionality, as applied, of St. 1982, c. 554, could be considered by this court. In any event, having decided that the reported provisions on their face impermissibly burden the defendants' rights under art. 12 to plead not guilty and to have a jury trial, we need reach no other issue, including other facial attacks on the statute raised by the defendants and by some amici curiae.
Litigation of a capital case requires such additional expenditures of money and time as those incident to the summoning of an oversized venire, the con ducting of an exhaustive voir dire of potential jurors, the sequestration of jurors, and the provision of extra security precautions. Under the statutory provisions reported, it also requires the presentation of evidence in a presentence hearing before a jury in cases where the death penalty may be imposed. See G. L. c. 279, § 68, inserted by St. 1982, c. 554, § 6. If we postponed decision of the reported questions, litigation of such cases also would be burdensome in terms of the difficulty that counsel for both sides would experience in making strategic and tactical decisions without knowing whether the death penalty provisions were valid.
We already have been informed of the pendency in Essex County of two cases of murder in the first degree in which the Commonwealth has given notification of its intention to seek the death penalty. At oral argument, the first assistant district attorney for the Middle District indicated that his office might seek the death penalty in two other Worcester County cases.
The second sentence of art. 26 "is not to be viewed as an isolated sentence, but the amendment of which it is a part should be read as a whole." Lincoln v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 326 Mass. 313, 317 (1950). See also Buckley v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, supra. Our interpretation of this sentence is borne out by the third sentence of art. 26, also added by art. 116. The third sentence provides: "The general court may, for the purpose of protecting the general welfare of the citizens, authorize the imposition of the punishment of death by the courts of law having jurisdiction of crimes subject to the punishment of death." The second sentence, then, states the provision which is necessary to allow such a law or laws: that no part of the Constitution should be interpreted as prohibiting per se the death penalty.
The position we take is consistent with that taken by the United States Supreme Court. Although we base our decision in this case on the State Constitution and on State law, it is relevant to note that, although the United States Supreme Court has held that the imposition of the death penalty is not invariably cruel and unusual punishment, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168-187 (1976), other cases of that Court have struck down as unconstitutional, on grounds including the ban against cruel and unusual punishment, a number of death penalty statutes. See, e.g., Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 331, 336 (1976); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 285, 305 (1976). See also Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 591-592 (1977).
In short, while the amendment to art. 26 declares that our State Constitution is not to be construed as preventing the enactment of a death penalty statute or as interdicting the death penalty in every circumstance, we do not view it to preclude other constitutional review of the means and ways of determining the imposition of the death penalty.
In Black's Law Dictionary, quoted in the text, it is stated that the word "prohibit" is "not synonymous with 'regulate.'" The same dictionary defines "regulate" as follows: "To fix, establish, or control; to adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct by rule or restriction; to subject to governing prin ciples or laws " (emphasis supplied). Id. at 1156. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 991 (Century ed. 1926) states that a "prohibition" of an act means that it is "[f]orbidden to do," but that to "regulate" means "[t]o adjust by rule, method, or established mode; . to subject to governing principles or laws." Id. at 1040.
Thus, while art. 116 serves to preclude a ruling (as was reached in District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist. v. Watson, 381 Mass. 648 [1980]) that a particular constitutional provision bars or interdicts the imposition of the death penalty, it cannot be viewed as precluding a review as to whether a particular statute meets constitutional muster under other provisions of the Constitution. The fact that the third sentence carries the limitations on the power of the Legislature to enact such laws only "for the purpose of protecting the general welfare of the citizens" and to authorize the imposition of the death penalty only by those courts "having jurisdiction of crimes subject to the punishment of death" corroborates our analysis. Surely, no one could seriously argue that a defendant subject to the death penalty is to be given no constitutional safeguards, while a defendant charged with a misdemeanor retains them, or that a Housing Court judge could be given the right to impose the death penalty on a recalcitrant landlord in contempt of the judge's orders.
One of those reasons might be that, in particular circumstances, a ten-year prison term is a cruel or unusual punishment. Likewise, we consider that the art. 26 ban against cruel or unusual punishment still may apply to a statute authorizing the death penalty. Instead of operating to prohibit the imposition of the death penalty, however, art. 26 now operates to regulate it. For instance, hypothetical statutes such as those described in note 14, infra, still may be ruled unconstitutional under art. 26. Furthermore, a statute may be ruled unconstitutional under art. 26 although it might not be construed as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If the proponents of art. 116 had wished to tie the standard of review under art. 26 to that under the Eighth Amendment, they could have done so. See Fla. Const, art. 1, § 12 (as amended Nov. 2, 1982).
The amendment was designated simply as one "providing for capital punishment." 1980 Joint Session Journal 52.
These arguments were circulated to the voters in accordance with art. 48, General Provisions, IV. So also was the minority report of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, which began, "Today the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice recommends that, after 35 years, we reinstate the death penalty and that in order to do so we repeal the prohibition of it embodied in Article 26 of the Declaration of Rights."
The Commonwealth's construction of art. 116 also would mean that a statute authorizing the imposition of the death penalty for shoplifting or prescribing the use of torture to carry out a death sentence would be valid under the Massachusetts Constitution. Nothing in the language or history of art. 116 persuades us that the people intended it to have this consequence either. See note 11, supra.
In People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628, cert, denied, 406 U.S. 958 (1972), the California Supreme Court held that death was an impermissibly cruel punishment under former art. 1, § 6, of the California Constitution, proscribing cruel or unusual punishment. In November, 1972, art. 1, § 27, of the California Constitution was enacted by initiative. It provides: "All statutes of this state in effect on February 17, 1972, requiring, authorizing, imposing, or relating to the death penalty are in full force and effect, subject to legislative amendment or repeal by statute, initiative, or referendum. The death penalty provided for under those statutes shall not be deemed to be, or to constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments within the meaning of Article 1, Section 6 nor shall such punishment for such offenses be deemed to contravene any other provision of this constitution."
In People v. Superior Court, supra, a majority of the California Supreme Court ruled unconstitutionally vague subdivision (a) (14) of Penal Code § 190.2. That subdivision set forth as a "special circumstance! ]" that "[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity." The penalty mandated under that section for a defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree in any case where that or any other special circumstance was charged and specially found to be true was death or confinement in State prison for a term of life, without possibility of parole.
The court rested its decision on art. 1, § 7 (a) and 15, of the Constitution of the State of California, as well as on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It rejected the State's argument that art. 1, § 27, of the California Constitution insulated from State constitutional review all statutes, substantive and procedural, relating to the death penalty and thus precluded the court from reviewing the subdivision at issue under the California Constitution. See People v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, supra at 807-809. The court stated that "[n]owhere in the section or the legislative history is there any indication that the drafters or proponents intended to affect the continuing applicability of the state Constitution in death penalty trials insofar as the defect in the statute in question does not relate to the death penalty per se." Id. at 808. It also based its conclusion as to the intention behind § 27 on the absurd results which would be produced by the logical extension of the State's interpretation of the section. For example, the vagrancy law's "common drunk" provision, which the court had determined to be void for vagueness, precluding imposition of a county jail term, could not have been invalidated under the State Constitution if the penalty for being a "common drunk" had been death. Id. at 809.
At oral argument before us, the Commonwealth sought to distinguish the California case in that the statutory subdivision there ruled unconstitutional had to do with the process of determining guilt or innocence. See id. at 803. The Commonwealth conceded at oral argument that art. 116 does not insulate statutory provisions dealing with the process of determining guilt or innocence from State constitutional review. It stated that art. 116 was wholly concerned with disposition.
Although the subdivision invalidated by the California court was concerned with the determination of guilt, the language of the court quoted above indicates that it considered more than just statutory provisions so concerned to be subject to State constitutional review. Furthermore, we see no more justification for interpreting art. 116 as insulating provisions dealing with sentencing from review under the Massachusetts Constitution than for interpreting it as so insulating provisions dealing with the determination of guilt. See notes 11 and 14 supra.
Article 12 provides: "No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him; or be compelled to accuse, or furnish evidence against himself. And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself, or his counsel, at his election. And no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, despoiled, or deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, exiled, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land.
"And the legislature shall not make any law, that shall subject any person to a capital or infamous punishment, excepting for the government of the army and navy, without trial by jury."
General Laws c. 277, § 47, as amended by St. 1979, c. 344, § 38, provides in part that "[i]f a prisoner, under indictment for a capital crime, pleads guilty, upon being arraigned, the court shall award sentence against him; if he does not plead guilty, the court may assign him counsel and take all other measures preparatory to a trial."
The first sentence of G. L. c. 263, § 6, as appearing in St. 1979, c. 344, § 19, reads: "A person indicted for a crime shall not be convicted thereof except by confessing his guilt in open court, by admitting the truth of the charge against him by his plea or demurrer or by the verdict of a jury accepted and recorded by the court or, in any criminal case other than a capital case, by the judgment of the court." Although § 6 prohibits a defendant in a capital case from waiving his right to a jury trial, it does not prohibit him from pleading guilty.
Rule 12 (a) (1) of Mass. R. Crim. P. provides, in relevant part, that "[a] defendant may plead . . . guilty . to any crime with which he has been charged and over which the court has jurisdiction."
This predecessor, Gen. Sts. c. 158, § 5 (1860), provided that "[n]o person indicted for an offence shall be convicted thereof, unless by confession of his guilt in open court, or by admitting the truth of the charge against him by his plea or demurrer, or by the verdict of a jury accepted and recorded by the court."
By this chapter, G. L. c. 265, § 2, was amended to read, in part, "[w]hoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall suffer the punishment of death, unless the jury shall by their verdict . . . recommend that the sentence of death be not imposed."
In their pertinent parts, these statutory sections were the same at the time of Balliro as they are today. See id. at 587 nn.3 & 4.
The Commonwealth does not take the view that under St. 1982, c. 554, a defendant may not plead guilty to murder in the first degree. In conceding at oral argument that a defendant may plead guilty under that statute, the Commonwealth stated that it was relying on United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968). There the United States Supreme Court stated that "it should require an unambiguous expression on the part of the Congress to withhold this authority [to accept a plea of guilty] in specified cases." Id. at585, quoting United States v. Willis, 75 F. Supp. 628, 630 (D.D.C. 1948).
The rest of the section provides: "Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison for life. No person shall be eligible for parole under section one hundred and thirty-three A of chapter one hundred and twenty-seven while he is serving a life sentence for murder in the first degree, but if his sentence is commuted therefrom by the governor and council under the provisions of section one hundred and fifty-two of said chapter one hundred and twenty-seven he shall thereafter be subject to the provisions of law governing parole for persons sentenced for lesser offenses."
Furthermore, the use of the words "upon a trial by jury" at the beginning of § 70 may be taken as limiting the death penalty to cases where there has been a trial by jury.
Amici point out that the indictments at bar do not allege that the murder of Hanna was committed with either "deliberate premeditation" or "extreme atrocity or cruelty." If any of the defendants in this case were to plead guilty, therefore, he would not have pleaded guilty to either of the categories of murder of which he must be found guilty before a sentence of death may be imposed. G. L. c. 265, § 2. G. L. c. 279, § 68. We agree with the Commonwealth and other amici that this point is relevant only to the constitutionality of the statute as applied.
A "verdict" is "[t]he formal decision or finding made by a jury, impaneled and sworn for the trial of a cause, and reported to the court." Black's Law Dictionary 1398 (5th ed. 1979). "A verdict in law signifies the final action taken by a jury and nothing else." Ashapa v. Reed, 280 Mass. 514, 515 (1932).
This interpretation accords with G. L. c. 279, § 70. See note 25, supra. Thus, even if a defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment which alleged "deliberate premeditation" or "extreme atrocity or cruelty," see note 26, supra, under the terms of § 68 and 70 he could not be sentenced to death. The statutory form of indictment for murder in the first degree does not, of course, require such specification. See G. L. c. 277, § 79.
Nor, as the Commonwealth concedes, may we write such a provision into the statute. "Plain omissions in the law to provide for exigencies which may arise cannot be supplied by those charged with administering the law or by the courts in construing and interpreting the statutes." Commonwealth v. Marrone, 387 Mass. 702, 704 (1982), quoting Thacher v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 250 Mass. 188, 190-191 (1924). See also Commonwealth v. Vickery, 381 Mass. 762, 767 (1980); State v. Frampton, 95 Wash. 2d 469, 479 (1981).
The only sentence possible in such a case would be life imprisonment. G. L. c. 279, § 70. G. L. c. 265, § 2.
The Commonwealth at oral argument relied on Commonwealth v. Balliro, 370 Mass. 585, 587 (1976), to support its theory that the language in c. 554 which refers to a trial jury has no application when a defendant has pleaded guilty. Such reliance is not helpful to the Commonwealth, for we held in Balliro that, when a defendant has pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree, the judge is to sentence him pursuant to G. L. c. 277, § 47.
Because, under Massachusetts law, the defendant in a capital case may not opt for trial before a judge, see note 18, supra, the death penalty legislation enacted in St. 1982, c. 554, is more burdensome than the clause invalidated in Jackson. Under St. 1982, c. 554, the defendant must plead guilty in order to avoid the risk of the death penalty, whereas in Jackson the defendant could avoid it by opting for a trial to a judge. Thus, the Massachusetts legislation burdens not only the right to jury trial but also the right to trial.
The Court ruled that the chilling effect was unnecessary because Congress could have achieved the goal of limiting the death penalty to cases in which a jury recommended it without penalizing those defendants who pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. Jackson, supra at 582-583.
Although we rest our decision solely on State constitutional grounds, see note 5, supra, our review of the orders of the United States Supreme Court since Jackson persuades us that the result we reach would be mandated by the Federal Constitution also. Dealing with State statutes which are marked by a deficiency similar to that in the Massachusetts death penalty statute, the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases, and then, relying in whole or in part on the Jackson principle, reversed the judgments in so far as they imposed the death sentence, and remanded for further proceedings: Orders at 403 U.S. 948 (1971), State v. Forcella, 52 N.J. 263 (1968), sub nom. Funicello v. New Jersey, State v. Childs, 269 N.C. 307 (1967); State v. Atkinson, 275 N.C. 288 (1969); State v. Hill, 276 N.C. 1 (1969); State v. Roseboro, 276 N.C. 185 (1970); State v. Williams, 276 N.C. 703 (1970); State v. Sanders, 276 N.C. 598 (1970); State v. Atkinson, 278 N.C. 168 (1971).
In Commonwealth v. LeRoy, 376 Mass. 243, 246-247 (1978), we rejected the argument that the choice imposed on a defendant by G. L. c. 90, § 24 & 24E, as then in effect, unconstitutionally infringed on the defendant's right to a jury trial.
Under § 24 (1) (b), inserted by St. 1964, c. 200, § 1, a defendant convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor had his license automatically revoked. See LeRoy, supra at 243-245. Under § 24E (as appearing in St. 1975, c. 505, § 2), on the other hand, in certain circumstances where a defendant's case had been continued by a judge without a finding, the judge might enter a dismissal of the charge upon the defendant's satisfactory compliance with a driver alcohol education program. Since there was no conviction in such a case, a defendant's license was not automatically revoked. See LeRoy, supra at 244.
LeRoy argued that the statute infringed his right to a jury trial since he only could receive disposition under § 24E and so avoid loss of his license if he chose to be tried by a judge. LeRoy, supra at 246. In rejecting this argument, we stated that "[n]ot all government-imposed choices in the criminal process which discourage the exercise of rights are impermissible." Id. That statement is not controlling here. One of the cases we relied on in making it was Mann v. Commonwealth, 359 Mass. 661, 667 (1971), in which we rejected the argument that the imposition of a greater sentence after a de nova trial under G. L. c. 278, § 18, as amended by St. 1955, c. 131, § 8, unconstitutionally burdened the right to a jury trial. We there distinguished United States v. Jackson, supra, as having "no application. In the Jackson case the death sentence could be imposed only if the defendant insisted on trial by jury. Clearly, Jackson's right to a jury trial was burdened unconstitutionally by such provision." Mann, supra. LeRoy is also distinguishable .from Jackson and from the present,case. First, it is distinguishable by virtue of the fact that the harsher penalty was equally available upon conviction by a judge as upon conviction by a jury. See LeRoy, supra at 245. Second, it is distinguishable by virtue of the fact that it involved a minor offense and a minor penalty. See Commonwealth v. Marder, 346 Mass. 408, 409, 411-412 (1963), decided the same day as Letters v. Commonwealth, supra. See also Corbitt v. New Jersey, 439 U.S. 212, 217 (1978).
Section 7 of St. 1982, c. 554, provides that "[i]f any of the provisions of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared severable." Our answer to question B is based on our view that c. 554 authorizes the imposition of the death penalty in a way which is unconstitutional. Those provisions which relate to the method of execution of the death penalty cannot be given effect without the provisions which relate to the imposition of the death penalty, and hence are not severable. .
Thus, § 57-71 of G. L. c. 279, inserted by St. 1982, c. 554, § 6, are wholly invalid. General Laws c. 279, § 4, as appearing in St. 1982, c. 554, § 4, is, on the other hand, only partially invalid. So far as it provides that "[s]entence shall be imposed upon conviction of a crime, regardless of whether an appeal has been taken," it is valid. Likewise, G. L. c. 265, § 2, as appearing in St. 1982, c. 554, § 3, is valid except for the first sentence, the sentence relating to the death penalty. The provisions of G. L. c. 279, § 4, and c. 265, § 2, which do not relate to the death penalty "can be given effect without the invalid provisions" of those sections. Furthermore, we conclude that the provisions which do not relate to the death penalty "have independent force, thus justifying the inference that the enacting body would have passed [them] without the otherfs]." Commonwealth v. Marrone, 387 Mass. 702, 707 (1982), quoting Del Duca v. Town Adm'r of Methuen, 368 Mass. 1, 13 (1975). See also Opinions of the Justices, 372 Mass. 912, 917-918 (1977); Commonwealth v. Harrington, 367 Mass. 13,15-22 (1975); Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 364Mass. 1, 14-15 (1973).