Court Opinion

ID: 9731590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:50:47.687614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:19.861538
License: Public Domain

Quirico, J.
(dissenting). General Laws c. 278, § 16A, provides in pertinent part as follows: “At the trial of a complaint or indictment for rape, incest, carnal abuse or other crime involving sex, where a minor under eighteen years of age is the person upon, with or against whom the crime is alleged to have been committed . . . the presiding justice shall exclude the general public from the court room, admitting only such persons as may have a direct interest in the case.” It is undisputed that the criminal trial from which employees of the Boston Globe were excluded was one in which the defendant was being tried on indictments charging him with the crimes of forcible rape and forced unnatural rape on victims who were under eighteen years of age.
In part 1 of its opinion, the court holds that the word “trial,” as used in the phrase “[a]t the trial” at the beginning of § 16A, is ambiguous. The court then discusses several principles of statutory construction as relating to ambiguous language and by the application of those principles to § 16A it concludes that when the Legislature used the word “trial” it intended it to mean only that part of the trial during which the minor victim testifies.
For the reasons stated below, I am unable to agree with that interpretation of § 16A, and I therefore respectfully dissent from the opinion in that regard.
It is clear from the court’s opinion that its conclusion that § 16A “is mandatory only as to the victim’s testimony” is not based on any holding that the statute is unconstitutional. *867The court expressly states that it does not reach the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiff. The court limits itself to the process of statutory construction of an assumedly ambiguous statute. For that purpose it resorts to several aids to interpretation, particularly the legislative history of § 16A, as originally enacted in 1923 and amended in 1931, and various articles appearing in law journals and other publications between 1969 and 1978 on the subject of the ordeal of rape victims in court. See note 11, supra, of the court’s opinion. I likewise limit this dissent to a consideration of statutory construction, and do not reach any constitutional issues.
1. I do not believe that the words “[a]t the trial,” as used at the beginning of § 16A, are ambiguous. I believe that they are used in their usual and ordinary sense, and that as such they include all of the trial proceedings starting with the empanelling of the jury and continuing through the return of the verdict or finding. There may be some exceptions thereto, e.g., voir dire hearings held in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of evidence, but it is not necessary for the purposes of this case to identify or define such exceptions precisely. In any event I do not believe that the clear language, given its usual and ordinary meaning, permits the drawing of a distinction between that part of the trial during which a youthful victim of a sex crime testifies and the remainder of the trial during which any other witnesses are testifying.
The language which the Legislature used in § 16A to state its intention to require the exclusion of the general public “at the trial” of persons charged with sex crimes against young victims is not unique to that statute. In G. L. c. 119, § 38, inserted by St. 1954, c. 646, § 1, the Legislature mandated that “ [a]ll hearings [of a certain type involving juveniles] shall be closed to the general public . . . .” A similar provision is found in G. L. c. 119, § 65, to the effect that “the court shall exclude the general public from the room” in which hearings are held on certain juvenile matters. General Laws c. 210, § 6, as amended through St. 1971, c. 388, provides that if, at the request of any par*868ty, a probate judge determines that an adoption hearing shall be held in chambers, “the probate judge shall exclude the general public from the hearing.” Similarly, G. L. c. 278, § 16B, inserted by St. 1949, c. 302, provides that a District Court judge “may exclude the general public from the court room during the trial of any criminal proceeding involving husband and wife.” I know of no claim or suggestion that these statutes should be construed to permit the closure of only certain parts of the trials to which they apply; and I know of no instances of the application of such a limitation by our trial courts as a matter of statutory construction.
It is significant to note that wjien the Legislature did intend to authorize the exclusion of persons from limited portions of a trial it did not use the general language contained in § 16A and other statutes cited above, but rather it chose language expressly authorizing an exclusion limited to prescribed portions of a trial. This is eloquently demonstrated by G. L. c. 278, § 16C, inserted by St. 1978, c. 316, which provides in part; “To protect the parties involved at a trial arising from a complaint or indictment for incest or rape, the trial judge may exclude all spectators from the courtroom in which such trial is being held, of from said courtroom during those portions of such trial when direct testimony is to be presented,” provided certain consents by the parties are first obtained.
In my opinion, a comparison of § 16A with the other statutes discussed above requires a conclusion that the Legislature is capable when drafting statutes of using language which clearly expresses its intent to exclude the general public or spectators from trials generally as distinguished from parts of trials, and that it demonstrated this in its choice of the language of § 16A in sharp contrast to that of § 16C. A comparison of those two sections leaves no support for a claim that § 16A is ambiguous as to what is meant by the words “at the trial.”
2. If, as I believe, the language of § 16A is not ambiguous, then there is no need or occasion to resort to the legislative *869history of the statute. While “[i]t is permissible to examine records of legislative proceedings incident to the passage of a statute to illumine its doubtful language ... its plain meaning cannot be thereby affected . . . .” Plunkett v. Old Colony Trust Co., 233 Mass. 471, 474 (1919). Old South Ass’n v. Boston, 212 Mass. 299, 304-305 (1912). “The plain meaning of a statute cannot be affected by resort to proceedings incident to its passage. Light may be sought from that source only to illumine statutory language of doubtful import. Other information than that afforded by the words of the statute can be examined only to aid in the solution of an ambiguity. We can only interpret the words of the statute: we cannot speculate as to the probable intention of the Legislature apart from those words.” Allen v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 502, 508 (1930).
The case of D.N. Kelley & Son v. Selectmen of Fairhaven, 294 Mass. 570 (1936), involved the question whether the selectmen were authorized by St. 1926, c. 43, § 1, to give a lease of a town wharf. Id. at 571, 574. The plaintiff offered, and the trial judge excluded, evidence that as originally presented to the Governor for signature the bill expressly authorized the selectmen to “lease said property in whole or in part for any purpose,” that the Governor returned it with his recommendation that those words be struck out, and that the bill after having been thus amended was enacted and became a law. Id. at 576. The law as enacted said that the selectmen could acquire Union Wharf in their town and that they could “maintain and operate the same as a wharf.” Id. at 571. This court, in upholding the exclusion of the proffered evidence, said: “The words of the statute as enacted are plain and need no elucidation as to their meaning. The leasing shown by the record and assailed in this proceeding was merely incidental to the main purpose for which the wharf was acquired and in no way has interfered with that purpose.” Id. at 576 (citation omitted).
In Milton v. Metropolitan Dist. Comm’n, 342 Mass. 222, 223 (1961), we said: “ There is no need to resort to the legislative history of [the statute involved], because its words are *870unequivocal. Indeed, because of its clarity we should not interpret it by resorting to its legislative history.” Accord, Nichols v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 314 Mass. 285, 293 (1943); Boston Consol. Gas Co. v. Department of Pub. Utils., 321 Mass. 259, 266 (1947).
Since it is my opinion, as already stated above, that the language of § 16A, and particularly the words “at the trial” as used therein, are not ambiguous, I believe that under the doctrine developed in the cases discussed above, nothing in the legislative history can justify a departure from the plain meaning of these words.
In its opinion the court seems to emphasize that the Special Commission which recommended the amendment of § 16A in the manner later enacted as St. 1931, c. 205, said in its report (1931 House Doc. No. 1200, at 90) that the statutory purpose was: “To spare girls of juvenile age the embarrassment, humiliation and demoralization of testifying to all the sordid details of rape, incest, carnal abuse or other crime involving sex, incidental to open trial with examination and cross-examination.” At the risk of repetition, it is my view that such emphasis and reliance on the report would be proper if we were dealing with ambiguous statutory language, which I do not believe to be the case. The Legislature apparently chose language which was broader than that which would have been necessary to accomplish the more limited objective of the Commission. In these circumstances the intention of the Special Commission cannot prevail over the clear and unequivocal, albeit broader, language used by the Legislature in § 16A.
3. If this were a case where, by reason of ambiguous statutory language, we were permitted to resort to extrinsic aids for the interpretation of that language, I would prefer to resort to the aid sanctioned in Burrage v. County of Bristol, 210 Mass. 299 (1911). That case involved the question whether a statute which authorized “the expenses and costs” of disbarment proceedings meant that such sums were to be paid “as in criminal prosecutions.” Id. at 300. This court said, id. at 301: “It is agreed that the practice has been for *871many years for the counties to pay for professional services rendered in prosecuting disbarment proceedings. Where the language of a statute is of doubtful import, the contemporaneous construction put upon it by officers thereby charged with performance of public duties is strong evidence of its meaning. The understanding and application of statutory words susceptible of different meanings, through years of practice, and sanctioned by the acquiescence of the Legislature, is significant of the intention with which they were employed originally.”1
The case of Swan v. Superior Court, 222 Mass. 542 (1916), involved the removal of members of a licensing board under R. L. c. 100, § 4, which provided that such removals were subject to review by the Superior Court and that “there shall be no appeal” from the decision of the court. Id. at 543. The issue was whether, notwithstanding the quoted language, the decision could be reviewed under a petition for a writ of certiorari, as had been done for many years, pursuant to R. L. c. 156, § 3, and R. L. c. 192, § 4, authorizing this court “to correct and prevent errors and abuses [in proceedings of trial courts] if no other remedy is expressly provided.” In holding that the latter statutes prevailed, this court noted that the Superior Court had universally followed a practice in accord with those statutes, and said, “The understanding and application of statutory words through years of practice by those charged with heavy official responsibility to interpret them aright, sanctioned by the acquiescence of the Legislature, is persuasive, although not conclusive, as to their correct meaning.” Id. at 547.
*872If we were to resort to extrinsic aids for the interpretation of G. L. c. 278, § 16A, on the assumption that its language is ambiguous, I believe that the aid illustrated in the Bur-rage and Swan cases, supra, would support the conclusion that § 16A is not to be interpreted as narrowly as is done in this court’s opinion in the present case. The court holds today that, since 1931, § 16A became mandatory by reason of the amendment2 substituting the mandatory word “shall ” for the directory word “may.” I believe it is proper for us to take judicial notice of the fact that almost all Superior Court judges who have had occasion to apply the statute since 1931 have proceeded on the basis that it required closure of the entire trial. I know of no instance in which a judge who made a more limited application of § 16A did so on the basis of the interpretation this day given to it by this court.
I believe that it is also proper to take notice (a) that in the past several years there has been an increase in aggressive, and perhaps concerted, action by the press in claiming a constitutional right to be present at trials which are subject to § 16A; and (b) that some judges of the Superior Court, but very few, have either yielded to or attempted to accommodate that pressure by admitting the press under special conditions, guidelines or restraints. See Commonwealth v. Leo, ante 34, 36-38, (1979). Whatever the motivation or reason for this departure from the previous universal application of § 16A to the entire trial, there is no indication that it was due to any concept that the Legislature had intended the closure to be limited to the time when the youthful victim testified. Indeed, the departure as applied in the Leo case, supra, did not take the form of the closure of a particular part of the trial. If the departure was due to constitutional considerations, it does not detract from the significance of the fact that for almost fifty years the judges of the Superior Court have treated § 16A as applying to the entire trial. That fact, while not conclusive, is in my opinion per*873suasive against the limitation which this court now places on the statute.
4. Although the court does not decide the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiff, their presence is a factor in the limitation which it places on § 16A. The court expressly notes the presence of these issues and says that in view thereof, and of “the United States Supreme Court’s uncertain posture on the issues, [citing the Richmond Newspapers, Inc., and the Gannett Co. cases] we seek to shrink the region of possible constitutional doubts about G. L. c. 278, § 16A.” It does this in the application of the principle that a “statute must be construed, if fairly possible so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional but also grave doubts upon that score.”
The Richmond Newspapers, Inc., case has now been argued before the United States Supreme Court. In my opinion if the decision in that case or any other decision hereafter by a court enjoying supremacy in this area mandates the truncation of G. L. c. 278, § 16A, so that it applies only to the time when the minor victim testifies, there will be time enough for this court so to limit it. On the other hand, if it becomes apparent from future controlling decisions that the truncation now declared by this court was not constitutionally required, the present holding probably cannot effectively be reversed except by new legislation.
Until there is a controlling decision on this subject by the United States Supreme Court, I do not believe that the concern expressed and protection provided by the Legislature for minor victims of sex crimes by the language of G. L. c. 278, § 16A, should be stripped from them by judicial action. The mere specter of a decision yet to be issued by the United States Supreme Court should not be a factor contributing to judicial retreat and discontinued enforcement of the legislative mandate contained in § 16A.

 In many other cases involving the construction of a statute, this court has used, as an extrinsic aid, the construction given to that statute over a period of years by an administrative agency charged with the enforcement or administration of the statute, sometimes citing the Burrage case, supra, in support of that practice. See, e.g., Cleary v. Cardullo’s Inc., 347 Mass. 337, 343-344 (1964); Mullen v. Sewer Comm’rs, 280 Mass. 531, 536 (1932); Allen v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 272 Mass. 502, 509 (1930); United States Trust Co. v. Commonwealth, 245 Mass. 75, 80 (1923); Tyler v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 226 Mass. 306, 310 (1917).

 St. 1931, c. 205.