Opinion ID: 2038653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recent Legal Developments.

Text: Prior to the United States Supreme Court's decision on May 27, 1975, in Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975), the practice in this Commonwealth under G.L.c. 119, § 61, as appearing in St. 1964, c. 308, § 2, [2] and Rule 85A of the Rules of the District Courts (1965), as amended, [3] had been to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the juvenile complaint prior to a transfer hearing. At the transfer hearing, if the judge decided to decline jurisdiction, the juvenile complaint was dismissed pursuant to G.L.c. 119, § 61, and an adult complaint was issued forthwith under G.L.c. 119, § 75. See generally A Juvenile, petitioner, 364 Mass. 531 (1974). In May, 1975, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Breed relating to juvenile proceedings in California. In that case, the defendant had been convicted of robbery in a Superior Court trial following an adjudicatory hearing in Juvenile Court at which it was determined that he had violated a criminal statute but that he was unfit for treatment as a juvenile. The Court held that the prosecution of respondent in Superior Court, after an adjudicatory proceeding in Juvenile Court, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. 421 U.S. at 541. As pointed out by the Supreme Court, the basic effect of its holding was to require, in most cases, that the transfer decision be made prior to an adjudicatory hearing. [4] Id. at 536. See Stokes v. Commonwealth, 368 Mass. 754 (1975). Shortly after the decision in Breed, and before the proceedings in this case, the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts District Courts issued a memorandum directive which altered Rule 85A of the Rules of the District Courts, see note 3 supra. Under the amended Rule 85A, in accordance with Breed, the District Court judge was required to hold a transfer hearing prior to an adjudicatory hearing. In effect, the transfer hearing was a preliminary proceeding which was to be followed by either a probable cause hearing on the adult complaint or a Juvenile Court trial on the delinquency complaint, depending on the result of the transfer hearing. [5] Subsequently, G.L.c. 119, § 61, was amended by St. 1975, c. 840, § 1 (effective December 24, 1975), so as to require a judge to make a determination, during the transfer hearing, as to whether probable cause exists. General Laws c. 119, § 61, as amended, further provides that a judge, before dismissing a juvenile complaint, must enter a written finding based upon clear and convincing evidence that the child presents a significant danger to the public as demonstrated by the nature of the offense charged and the child's past record of delinquent behavior, if any, and is not amenable to rehabilitation.... [6]