Title: Papp v. Commonwealth
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-13372
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: February 14, 2023

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-13372 
 
WILLIAM J. PAPP, THIRD  vs.  COMMONWEALTH. 
 
 
February 14, 2023. 
 
 
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.  
Practice, Criminal, Double jeopardy.  Moot Question. 
 
 
 
William J. Papp, III, appeals from a judgment of the county 
court denying, without a hearing, his petition for extraordinary 
relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3.  We dismiss the appeal as moot. 
 
 
Papp was charged in the District Court with operating a 
motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 
second offense, and operating with a suspended license.  A jury 
trial commenced.  Shortly after beginning to question a 
Commonwealth witness, the prosecutor experienced a medical 
problem requiring immediate treatment at a hospital.  As a 
result, the judge declared a mistrial, ruling that a manifest 
necessity existed and that a retrial was permissible.  In his 
G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, Papp argued that there was no 
manifest necessity for the mistrial and that retrial would 
violate his protections against double jeopardy.  The single 
justice denied relief, and after a second jury trial, Papp was 
convicted as charged.1  Papp timely filed a direct appeal from 
those convictions, which is pending in the Appeals Court.  After 
obtaining from the single justice leave to file a late notice of 
appeal, Papp filed this appeal from the denial of his G. L. 
 
1 It appears that Papp's second trial took place the same 
day that the single justice denied relief.  Papp did not request 
that the single justice or the full court stay the proceedings 
in the District Court, although he could have done so.  See 
Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175 n.2 (1989).  
c. 211, § 3, petition about three months after his direct appeal 
entered in the Appeals Court.  
 
 
Papp has filed a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. 
Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires him 
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."  
Ordinarily, we would allow an appeal raising a double jeopardy 
claim to proceed, as "[a] criminal defendant who raises a double 
jeopardy claim of substantial merit is entitled to review of the 
claim before he is retried"; G. L. c. 211, § 3, is the 
appropriate route for obtaining that review; and "[t]he 
defendant . . . [has] the right to appeal an adverse 
determination by the single justice to the full court."  
Neverson v. Commonwealth, 406 Mass. 174, 175 & n.2 (1989).  In 
this case, however, where Papp's retrial has already taken 
place, it is too late to provide the review contemplated by 
Neverson and too late to prevent the retrial from going forward.  
This appeal from the denial of extraordinary relief is therefore 
moot and will be dismissed.  See Clarke v. Commonwealth, 437 
Mass. 1012, 1013 (2002).  To be clear, Papp's double jeopardy 
claim itself is not moot; he remains free to pursue that claim 
in the Appeals Court, which can, if warranted, provide relief 
from his convictions.2  See id. (after conviction, double 
jeopardy argument can adequately be raised on direct appeal).  
His appeal from the single justice's decision denying relief 
under G. L. c. 211, § 3, prior to his second trial, however, is 
moot.3   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by 
a memorandum of law. 
 
William J. Papp, III, pro se. 
 
2 It appears that Papp has raised his double jeopardy 
argument in his brief filed in the Appeals Court. 
 
3 In dismissing this appeal, we express no view as to the 
merits of Papp's pending appeal before the Appeals Court, nor do 
we express any view as to the merits of Papp's double jeopardy 
claim or as to whether there was a manifest necessity for the 
mistrial.  We simply decline to disturb the denial of 
extraordinary relief in these circumstances.