Title: Commonwealth v. Cruz
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-124630
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: December 27, 2018

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12463 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  GERARDO CRUZ. 
 
 
December 27, 2018. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Disclosure of evidence, Discovery. 
 
 
Gerardo Cruz appeals from a judgment of a single justice of 
this court allowing the Commonwealth's petition for relief 
pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.  The Commonwealth sought relief 
from the portion of a discovery order that, in essence, required 
the prosecutor to produce certain exculpatory information from 
the personnel files of the Boston Police Department and its 
internal affairs division.  We affirm. 
 
Cruz is charged in the Boston Municipal Court with two 
counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession 
of ammunition, drug possession, two counts of possession with 
intent to distribute drugs, and receiving stolen property.  In 
October 2017, a judge in that court granted in part Cruz's 
motion for discovery from the Commonwealth, including a request, 
appearing in paragraph two of the endorsed motion, that the 
Commonwealth produce "[d]ocuments and information concerning 
whether [the Boston Police Department] has ever admonished, 
disciplined, investigated, [or] reprimanded" the police officer 
who drafted the search warrant affidavit in Cruz's case.  At the 
hearing on the motion, the judge made clear to the prosecutor 
that "in [her] view that mean[t] personally looking through 
[internal affairs division] materials, personnel files of this 
officer, and finding out from supervisors whether there's 
anything of that nature."  The Commonwealth sought 
reconsideration of the order insofar as it purported to require 
the prosecutor, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 14, as appearing 
in 442 Mass. 1518 (2004), to review files not in the 
2 
 
 
 
Commonwealth's "possession, custody or control."1  The motion 
judge denied the request for reconsideration, and the 
Commonwealth then sought relief from a single justice of this 
court pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.   
 
After a hearing, the single justice allowed the 
Commonwealth's petition, reasoning that "[h]ere, as in 
Commonwealth v. Wanis, 426 Mass. 639, 644 (1998), 'the judge 
erred in ordering discovery pursuant to rule 14 of records of 
the internal affairs division of a police department against a 
prosecutor who did not have possession, custody, or control of 
any of the requested information.'  Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 
426 Mass. 647, 648 (1998)."  The single justice further found 
that to the extent that the request at issue was made pursuant 
to Mass. R. Crim. P. 17, 378 Mass. 885 (1979), the requirements 
of neither rule 17 nor Wanis were satisfied. 
 
"We review a decision of the single justice . . . under 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, only for 'clear error of law or abuse of 
discretion.'"  Commonwealth v. Bertini, 466 Mass. 131, 137 
(2013), quoting Caggiano v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 1004, 1005 
(1990).  Here, the single justice properly vacated paragraph two 
of the discovery order to the extent it "require[d] the 
prosecutor assigned to the case to look through the internal 
affairs division file and/or other personnel files of the Boston 
police officer who wrote the search warrant affidavit," where 
such materials were not in the possession, custody, or control 
of the Commonwealth.2  But by vacating the provision of the 
discovery order that contained this requirement, the single 
justice did nothing to relieve the Commonwealth of its ongoing 
                                                          
 
 
1 The parties dispute whether the challenged portion of the 
discovery order was issued pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 or 
Mass. R. Crim. P. 17, 378 Mass. 885 (1979).  Because the dispute 
centers on the scope of the prosecutor's obligations under the 
discovery order (rather than the Boston Police Department's), we 
treat it primarily under rule 14. 
     
 
2 Cruz argues that the single justice erred in determining 
that the discovery order was modified by the trial judge's 
comments at the hearing to include this requirement.  We see no 
error in the single justice's interpretation.  In any event, to 
the extent the single justice may have gone further than 
necessary in vacating the entirety of paragraph two, as opposed 
to merely clarifying the prosecutor's obligations under that 
paragraph, there would be no prejudice to Cruz, for the reasons 
discussed herein. 
3 
 
 
 
duty to disclose exculpatory information -- including any 
material, exculpatory information related to past discipline or 
internal investigation of the officer in question -- to the 
extent such information is in the possession, custody, or 
control of the prosecution team.  Wanis, 426 Mass. at 644.  See 
Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 (a).   
 
Moreover, Cruz is not necessarily foreclosed from seeking 
additional materials from the Boston Police Department through a 
motion pursuant to rule 17, provided that he can meet the 
applicable legal standard under that rule.  See Wanis, 426 Mass. 
at 643-644.  See also Commonwealth v. Dwyer, 448 Mass. 122, 139-
147 (2006) (discussing protocol for pretrial inspection of 
third-party records under Mass. R. Crim. P. 17); Commonwealth v. 
Lampron, 441 Mass. 265, 268 (2004) (holding that "[r]egardless 
of how a defendant styles his request, pursuit of documents and 
records in the possession of a nonparty must be considered and 
analyzed under rule 17 [a] [2]"); Rodriguez, 426 Mass. at 648-
650 (concerning rule 17 discovery of certain records of internal 
affairs division). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
Mark Booker for the respondent. 
 
John P. Zanini, Assistant District Attorney (AlexaRae 
Wright, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the 
Commonwealth.