Title: Commonwealth v. Delmore D., a juvenile
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12426
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: August 6, 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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12426 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DELMORE D., a juvenile.1 
 
 
August 6, 2018. 
 
 
Juvenile Court, Jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction, Juvenile Court.  
Practice, Civil, Moot case. 
 
 
 
 
Based on an allegation that the juvenile robbed an 
individual of his cellular telephone at knifepoint, the juvenile 
was charged by complaint in the Juvenile Court with delinquency 
by reason of armed robbery and assault by means of a dangerous 
weapon.  He moved to suppress an identification that one of the 
alleged victims made shortly after the incident, near the scene 
of the offense, when the juvenile was arrested.  The arresting 
officer positioned the juvenile between three plainclothes 
police officers and asked the alleged victim whether he was able 
to make an identification.  The alleged victim identified the 
juvenile by his clothing.  A judge in the Juvenile Court ordered 
the identification suppressed on the ground that this was an 
improperly suggestive lineup.   
 
 
The Commonwealth obtained leave to pursue an interlocutory 
appeal from the suppression ruling.  A panel of the Appeals 
Court, in an unpublished decision, reversed, concluding that the 
identification procedure was a showup rather than a lineup, and 
that it was not conducted in an unnecessarily suggestive manner.  
Commonwealth v. Delmore D., 91 Mass. App. Ct. 1120 (2017).  We 
granted the juvenile's application for further appellate review.  
On the Commonwealth's motion, we now dismiss its appeal as moot.  
 
                                                          
 
 
1 A pseudonym assigned by the Appeals Court. 
 
2 
 
 
 
1.  The juvenile was born on April 30, 1997, and attained 
the age of twenty on April 30, 2017, a few days before the 
Appeals Court panel issued its decision.  Accordingly, the 
complaints against him may not now be adjudicated in the 
Juvenile Court and must be dismissed.  See G. L. c. 119, § 58.  
Because the Commonwealth's appeal involves an interlocutory 
issue in a case that has for all intents and purposes become 
moot, the juvenile no longer has a continuing stake in the 
outcome of this appeal, and the appeal also must be dismissed as 
moot.2  See Blake v. Massachusetts Parole Bd., 369 Mass. 701, 703 
(1976). 
 
 
2.  We decline the juvenile's invitation to decide the 
appeal notwithstanding its mootness.  A challenge to this type 
of identification procedure may be capable of repetition, as the 
juvenile claims, but it will not necessarily evade appellate 
review.  Although we recognize that the issue is significant and 
has constitutional implications, the most prudent course is to 
defer deciding the issue until we are presented with a case 
where there is a live controversy.  See Lockhart v. Attorney 
Gen., 390 Mass. 780, 783-784 (1984) ("Where a moot issue . . . 
is not apt to evade review . . . we have declined to decide the 
issue"; also noting general "practice . . . of not unnecessarily 
deciding constitutional questions"). 
 
 
3.  For these reasons, a rescript shall issue from this 
court stating that the Commonwealth's appeal from the  
November 3, 2015, order of the Juvenile Court judge allowing the 
juvenile's motion to suppress his identification is moot.  We 
express no view as to whether the identification procedure 
employed in this case was constitutionally permissible and, if 
                                                          
 
 
2 The juvenile acknowledges that, because he has turned 
twenty years old, he cannot be adjudicated delinquent pursuant 
to G. L. c. 119, § 58, on the original complaint.  He argues, 
however, that he continues to have a stake in the proceeding 
because, if the Juvenile Court charges are dismissed, the 
Commonwealth could recharge the juvenile and then seek a 
transfer hearing permitting prosecution in adult court.  See 
Commonwealth v. Mogelinski, 473 Mass. 164, 171 & n.5 (2015), 
citing G. L. c. 119, § 72A.  The argument is misplaced.  The 
issue before us is limited to the Commonwealth's interlocutory 
appeal from the Juvenile Court judge's order allowing the 
juvenile's motion to suppress.  The juvenile's argument that he 
might be recharged is speculative and insufficient to confer a 
stake in the outcome of this particular appeal.   
3 
 
 
so, how such a procedure is to be evaluated.  That remains an 
open issue to be resolved in a case where the identification is  
a live issue.  Nothing in our disposition should be read as an 
indorsement of the Appeals Court's decision on that point.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered. 
 
 
 
The case was submitted on briefs. 
 
 
 
Colby M. Tilley, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
Brandon L. Campbell for the juvenile.