Title: Torres v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13082
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: October 8, 2021

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13082 
 
ANEUDY DELGADO TORRES  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
October 8, 2021. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Protective Order. 
 
 
The criminal defendant in the underlying Superior Court 
case, Aneudy Delgado Torres, 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. 
 
Torres is awaiting trial on two counts of murder in the 
first degree and related firearm offenses, in connection with 
the shooting deaths of two men in the parking lot of an 
apartment complex.  The Commonwealth sought and obtained a 
protective order pursuant to G. L. c. 268, § 13D (d), and Mass. 
R. Crim. P. 14 (a) (6), as appearing in 442 Mass. 1518 (2004), 
prohibiting defense counsel from providing Torres with copies of 
certain discovery materials on the ground that there was reason 
to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Torres 
poses a threat to the witnesses involved in this case.  In his 
petition for relief in the county court, Torres made several 
arguments as to why the protective order should be vacated, 
including that the order would violate his constitutional right 
 
 
1 Torres originally styled his petition in the county court 
as an application for leave to file an interlocutory appeal 
pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as amended, 476 Mass. 
1501 (2017).  Because the order from which the defendant sought 
relief was a protective order issued during the discovery 
process, rather than an order on a motion to suppress, the 
single justice treated the petition as one filed pursuant to 
G. L. c. 211, § 3. 
2 
 
 
 
to prepare his defense given the risks to his attorney of in-
person visitation in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and 
given certain other alleged limitations on Torres's ability to 
process and comprehend information relayed orally by his 
attorney.  The Commonwealth opposed the petition, and the single 
justice issued a judgment denying the petition without a 
hearing.  Torres timely appealed. 
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."  
Torres has failed to meet this burden. 
In his memorandum, Torres repeats his several arguments on 
the merits as to why he is entitled to relief from the 
protective order.  As to the issue whether he has an adequate 
alternative remedy on direct appeal, the defendant contends that 
it would be an "unwarranted and unlawful constitutional burden," 
after a conviction at trial, to require him to demonstrate 
prejudice from the protective order, as it would require him "to 
explain how he was harmed by the unknown."  However, this court 
has consistently declined to exercise its extraordinary 
authority to review similar protective orders in criminal cases 
on the ground that the defendant has an adequate alternative 
remedy on direct appeal.  See Madison v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 
1033, 1033-1034 (2013); Ray v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 1008, 
1008 (2006), S.C., 467 Mass. 115 (2014).  See also Commonwealth 
v. Holliday, 450 Mass. 794, 799-806, cert. denied sub nom. 
Mooltrey v. Massachusetts, 555 U.S. 947 (2008) (addressing 
challenge to protective order in criminal case on direct 
appeal).  Torres has failed to establish that the remedy of 
direct appeal would be inadequate in his case.      
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. 
 
 
 
Bernard Grossberg for the petitioner.