Court Opinion

ID: 9392554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 14:06:01.70948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.648886
License: Public Domain

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound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-13334

                        COMMONWEALTH   vs.   J.F.

            Plymouth.     February 8, 2023. - May 5, 2023.

 Present:    Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt,
                            & Georges, JJ.

Sealing. Criminal Records. Constitutional Law, Access to
     criminal records. Practice, Criminal, Nolle prosequi,
     Record.

     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court
Department on February 28, 2014.

     A petition to seal the record, filed on August 27, 2021,
was heard by Brian A. Davis, J.

     The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for
direct appellate review.

     Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for
the defendant.
     Arne Hantson, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.
     The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:
     Alyssa Golden, Ann Maurer, Elizabeth Connor, & Leigh
Woodruff for Community Legal Aid.
     Mason A. Kortz, Tamara S. Wolfson, & Paul M. Kominers for
Upturn, Inc.
     Pauline Quirion for Greater Boston Legal Services &
another.
                                                                   2

     Chinh H. Pham for Boston Bar Association.

     CYPHER, J.   On March 10, 2014, the defendant, J.F., was

arraigned on two counts of rape while armed with a firearm,

G. L. c. 265, § 22; one count of armed and masked robbery, G. L.

c. 265, § 17; one count of armed kidnapping with sexual assault,

G. L. c. 265, § 26; one count of assault with intent to rape,

G. L. c. 265, § 24; and one count of carrying a firearm without

a license, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a).   In December 2015, after a

jury trial, he was acquitted on one count of rape while armed,

assault with intent to rape, and carrying a firearm without a

license.1   The jury deadlocked on the remaining three counts,

resulting in the declaration of a mistrial.   Subsequently, in

March 2018, after determining that the alleged victim was unable

to testify at a retrial of those counts due to a relapse in her

substance use disorder, the Commonwealth filed a nolle prosequi.

Consequently, the defendant suffered no convictions resulting

from the charges.

     On August 27, 2021, the defendant filed a petition pursuant

to G. L. c. 276, § 100C (§ 100C), opposed by the Commonwealth,

     1 The trial judge granted the defendant's motion for a
required finding of not guilty as to the assault with intent to
rape and carrying a firearm charges, and on so much of the rape,
robbery, and kidnapping counts alleging the involvement of a
firearm. The jury found the defendant not guilty on the first
rape count.
                                                                     3

to seal his criminal record as to both the counts on which he

was acquitted and the counts for which a nolle prosequi was

filed.   After a hearing, a judge denied the defendant's petition

in writing.    The defendant appealed.   On appeal, the defendant

argues that the plain language of § 100C requires the sealing of

records in cases ending in findings of not guilty, no probable

cause, or a no bill by a grand jury, unless the defendant

objects to such sealing.    He asserts that this court's holding

in Commonwealth v. Pon, 469 Mass. 296 (2014), resolves any

concern surrounding a right of public access under the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution.     He further argues

that the judge abused his discretion in denying the petition

with respect to the counts that were nol prossed because he

misapplied the "good cause" standard, committing errors of fact

and judgment in weighing the factors relevant to his decision.

    For the reasons articulated infra, we hold that, consistent

with Pon, a closed case that ends in an acquittal, a no bill

from a grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause by the

court is not a record subject to a First Amendment presumption

of access.    We further hold that the Legislature clearly

abrogated the common-law presumption of access with respect to

these records by its plain language in § 100C, first par.

Regarding the counts in which the Commonwealth entered a nolle

prosequi, we conclude that the judge abused his discretion when
                                                                    4

weighing the relevant interests and factors.   Therefore, we

remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.2

     Background.   On February 28, 2014, a grand jury returned

six indictments against the defendant, charging him with two

counts of aggravated rape, one count of armed and masked

robbery, one count of armed kidnapping with sexual assault, one

count of assault with intent to rape, and one count of unlawful

possession of a firearm.   These charges stemmed from allegations

that the defendant, who knew the alleged victim, entered her car

while masked, told her that he had a gun, and drove her to

multiple automated teller machines attempting to have her

withdraw cash from her bank account.   After the assailant was

unable to procure cash due to a lack of funds in the victim's

account, he drove her to a parking lot, raped her, and fled.

     On December 9, 2015, a jury was empanelled, and trial

began.   On December 16, the trial judge allowed the defendant's

motion for required findings of not guilty on the charges of

assault with intent to rape and unlawful possession of a

     2 We recognize the amicus briefs submitted by Greater Boston
Legal Services and the Union of Minority Neighborhoods; Upturn,
Inc.; and Community Legal Aid; and the amicus letter submitted
by the Boston Bar Association.
                                                                      5

firearm.3    On that same day, the jury acquitted the defendant on

the first count of aggravated rape.     The jury were deadlocked as

to the remaining three charges.

     The case was continued for the scheduling of a new trial,

and the defendant's bail was reduced.    In addition to multiple

continuances by agreement, the Commonwealth advanced and

continued pretrial conferences and the trial date on several

occasions.    On April 4, 2017, a judge found the alleged victim

unavailable for purposes of trial.     The Commonwealth moved to

present the previous testimony of the unavailable witness, the

alleged victim, in the second trial.    That motion was denied.

On July 10, the defendant filed a motion for production of the

alleged victim's psychiatric treatment records, which was

allowed.    The case was continued to November 27 for trial.   The

parties later jointly requested that the trial date be

rescheduled.    On March 21, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a nolle

prosequi as to the remaining three counts:     the remaining rape

count, robbery, and kidnapping with sexual assault.

     3 The docket indicates that on April 4, 2017, the parties
agreed that the trial judge reduced the aggravated portion of
the remaining rape count and ordered the firearm provision
removed from the robbery count in accordance with his decision
on the required findings of not guilty.
                                                                    6

     On August 27, 2021, the defendant filed a petition to seal

his record in connection with the case.4   The docket indicates

that the case was continued to October 18 for a "[first] stage

motion to seal," where the defendant's presence was waived.    On

October 18, the matter was taken under advisement, and the

Commonwealth filed its opposition on October 20.    On January 6,

2022, the judge scheduled a hearing for "[s]tage [two] motion to

seal," but the hearing was continued due to the absence of an

interpreter for the defendant.

     After another continuance for COVID-19 reasons, the hearing

was held on February 9, 2022.    At the hearing, the parties and

the judge discussed Pon at length.   The judge indicated his

belief that Pon requires "a higher standard" for cases ending in

not guilty verdicts:   "the defendant must demonstrate that the

value of sealing clearly outweighs the constitutionally-based

value of the record remaining open to society."5

     For the counts in which a nolle prosequi entered, the judge

stated that the "defendant must establish that good cause exists

for sealing, but it's a lessened burden on the defendant, and

     4 According to the defendant's affidavit in support of his
petition to seal his criminal record, the only other incident on
his record is a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a
suspended license, which was dismissed on the payment of court
costs in 2012.

     5 The judge indicated that this standard appeared in Pon,
469 Mass. at 313 n.24, discussed infra.
                                                                    7

the [judge] must balance the interest at stake."   Defense

counsel asserted that in Pon, 469 Mass. at 311, this court

rejected the argument that the records of closed criminal

proceedings resulting in an entry of nolle prosequi or dismissal

are subject to a First Amendment presumption of public access.

The judge responded that the relevant holding only applied to

the nolle prosequi counts at issue.6   Defense counsel went on to

argue that the plain language of § 100C requires sealing for the

counts on which the defendant was acquitted.

     Discussing the factors in favor of sealing, the defendant

pointed out that it had been about four years since the

remaining counts had been nol prossed, and approximately six

years since the defendant's release, with the defendant

accumulating no new charges since then.   He was aged forty-four

at the time of the hearing, and he had no criminal record aside

from the relevant charges and a dismissed charge of operating a

motor vehicle with a suspended license.   The defendant, although

he has a job as a truck driver, has been unable to get better

paying jobs as a result of his record in this case.7   He

     6 The judge also noted that this court "defer[ed]" to Globe
Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 509-511 (1st Cir. 1989)
(Pokaski), and that this court "sa[id it is] going to be bound
by [Pokaski]."

     7 The defendant applied for, but was denied employment at,
among other places, a factory, an international airport as a
maintenance staff member, and a driver for various rideshare
                                                                      8

explained the stigma that he suffers as a result of these

charges.    The defendant acknowledged that the nature and reason

of the disposition, particularly the nol prossed counts, may not

weigh in his favor.8    The judge asked counsel about the publicity

surrounding the case.    The defendant reported one article had

appeared in a local newspaper in 2014 about the case.     The

Commonwealth noted that a news article about the case appeared

as a top result when searching the defendant's name on the

Internet.

     The Commonwealth then summarized the facts of the case.

After testifying in the case, the alleged victim, who suffered

from substance use issues, relapsed as a result of the trauma

from her testimony.     The Commonwealth continued the case several

times to "try[] to get her in a better position to be able to

companies. The defendant stated that the    factory job demanded
his passport, and his criminal record had   to be clean. From a
rideshare company, after he filled out an   application, he
received a notice that "there's something   that's being presented
that does not allow [him] to work."

     8 The judge stated, with respect to the deadlocked jury on
the charges of

     "rape with a firearm, robbery, armed and masked, and
     kidnapping with sexual assault, armed . . . , wouldn't the
     public want to [k]now, if those charges were . . . nol[]
     pros[s]ed after a jury deadlocked on the charges.

     "This is not a conviction; I understand it is not a
     conviction, but it also is -- and there's some indication
     that somebody thought there was some validity to the
     charges, because the jury deadlocked."
                                                                    9

testify, and ultimately, she wasn't."   When another judge denied

the Commonwealth's motion to use her previous trial testimony at

the second trial, the Commonwealth had "no choice" but to file a

nolle prosequi as to the remaining charges.   The Commonwealth

read a letter from the family of the alleged victim, who opposed

the sealing of the defendant's record, which detailed the severe

psychological distress and pain that she has suffered and

continues to suffer as a result of the violent crimes committed

against her.

    On February 14, 2022, in a written decision, the judge

denied the defendant's motion to seal his record in its

entirety.   The defendant appealed, and we allowed his

application for direct appellate review.

    Discussion.   1.   Presumption of public access to criminal

records for cases ending in findings of not guilty, a no bill by

the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause by the court.

The defendant argues that by its terms, § 100C, first par.,

calls for automatic sealing with no court involvement unless the

defendant requests otherwise as part of a fully integrated

scheme enacted by the Legislature.   He asserts that the 2010

reforms to the criminal offender record information (CORI)

system reaffirmed the Legislature's commitment to the

preexisting record sealing scheme, and that Pon removed any

constitutional impediment to the Legislature's directive to
                                                                  10

automatically seal closed cases ending in acquittal, as public

access would not do much to ensure the integrity of criminal

proceedings where there never was probable cause to bring the

charges or where a jury acquitted a defendant.   The defendant

argues that the Legislature, in enacting § 100C, first par.,

unequivocally abrogated the common-law presumption of public

access to judicial records.

    The Commonwealth argues that the judge did not err in

requiring the defendant to demonstrate that the value of sealing

the records of his acquittals at trial clearly outweighs the

constitutionally based value of the record remaining open to

society where the Pon decision did not extend to § 100C, first

par., and where Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497,

509-511 (1st Cir. 1989), found a First Amendment presumption of

access in criminal cases ending with findings of not guilty.

The Commonwealth asserts that, in fact, the judge did apply the

Pon analysis to the defendant's petition to seal the not guilty

charges.   Finally, the Commonwealth argues that because the

entire criminal case did not result in a finding of not guilty

(the defendant was only acquitted on three of the six

indictments against him), the statutory language of § 100C,

first par., does not apply to the defendant's acquittals.

    Section 100C states, in relevant part:
                                                                  11

     "In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found
     not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been
     returned by the grand jury, or a finding of no probable
     cause has been made by the court, the commissioner of
     probation [(commissioner)] shall seal said court appearance
     and disposition recorded in his files and the clerk and the
     probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings
     occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records
     of the proceedings in their files. The provisions of this
     paragraph shall not apply if the defendant makes a written
     request to the commissioner not to seal the records of the
     proceedings.

     "In any criminal case wherein a nolle prosequi has been
     entered, or a dismissal has been entered by the court, and
     it appears to the court that substantial justice would best
     be served, the court shall direct the clerk to seal the
     records of the proceedings in his files. The clerk shall
     forthwith notify the commissioner . . . and the probation
     officer of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or
     were initiated who shall likewise seal the records of the
     proceedings in their files."

G. L. c. 276, § 100C, first and second pars.

     In Pokaski, 868 F.2d at 499, the decision relied on by the

Commonwealth, the United States Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit addressed whether there is a constitutional right of

access to the records of cases sealed pursuant to § 100C.9   In

     9 Before the First Circuit addressed § 100C, this court
discussed the statute in Commonwealth v. Vickey, 381 Mass. 762,
767 (1980) (declining to extend availability of sealing beyond
named dispositions to pardon as no "strong demonstration of a
legislative purpose not to limit the availability of sealing to
the named dispositions" where they "are premised on a
presumption of innocence"). The court focused on the named
dispositions in § 100C -- not guilty, nolle prosequi, no bill,
no probable cause, dismissal -- and their connection to a
presumption of innocence in reasoning that there is a real need
for the remedy of sealing. Id. at 769. In other words, the
court's perspective was that a criminal defendant should not
                                                                  12

discussing § 100C, first par., the First Circuit noted that

where the defendant was found not guilty, a grand jury failed to

indict, or the court made a finding of no probable cause, § 100C

"provides for no court involvement; the sealing occurs

automatically upon the completion of a criminal case ending in

one of the above enumerated dispositions."   Id. at 500.    See

Attorney Gen. v. District Attorney for the Plymouth Dist., 484

Mass. 260, 270 (2020) (commissioner "shall" seal court record

where defendant found not guilty, no bill returned by grand

jury, or finding of no probable cause made by court);

Commonwealth v. Gavin G., 437 Mass. 470, 479 (2002) ("Under

§ 100C, an adult who is acquitted after trial, or as to whom the

grand jury return a no bill or a court finds no probable cause,

is entitled to immediate sealing"); Police Comm'r of Boston v.

Municipal Court of the Dorchester Dist., 374 Mass. 640, 649

(1978) (§ 100C, as enacted by St. 1973, c. 322, "provides that

probation records and court records must be sealed in criminal

cases on the request of a defendant who has been found not

guilty, as to whom no bill has been returned by the grand jury,

or where there has been a finding of no probable cause by the

court"); Commonwealth v. S.M.F., 40 Mass. App. Ct. 42, 44 (1996)

(§ 100C, first par., "mandates" sealing).    The second paragraph,

suffer adverse consequences where no finding of guilt was
entered.
                                                                    13

for cases ending with a nolle prosequi or a dismissal, to the

contrary, does not provide for "automatic" sealing.     Pokaski,

supra.

       The First Circuit "has established a First Amendment right

of access to records submitted in connection with criminal

proceedings."   Pokaski, 868 F.2d at 502.    Underlying the

determination that there exists a constitutionally secured right

of access is the premise that the public should have a full

understanding of the criminal proceeding to serve as a check on

the judicial system.    Id.   After determining that the blanket

prohibition on the disclosure of records mentioned by § 100C,

first par., implicates the First Amendment, the First Circuit

held that the automatic sealing of records of cases ending in a

finding of not guilty or no probable cause could not withstand

strict scrutiny and violated the First Amendment.10    Id. at 505-

509.    Further, the First Circuit noted that cases ending in a

finding of nolle prosequi or dismissal should be sealed "only

where it is necessary to achieve a compelling interest."      Id. at

510.

       Subsequently, in Commonwealth v. Doe, 420 Mass. 142 (1995),

overruled by Pon, 469 Mass. at 297, § 100C, second par., was at

       The First Circuit held that there is no First Amendment
       10

right of access to grand jury records where a grand jury refuses
to indict. Pokaski, 868 F.2d at 509.
                                                                    14

issue.11    The court recognized the First Circuit's conclusion in

Pokaski that there is a First Amendment right of access to

records submitted in connection with criminal proceedings, which

rendered § 100C, first par., unconstitutional.     Doe, supra at

147.    Under the second paragraph, adopting the constitutional

analysis set forth in Pokaski, the court held that the

"substantial justice" requirement in that paragraph would not be

met "unless it is demonstrated, first at [a] preliminary hearing

and, if the matter proceeds that far, at [a] final hearing, that

the value of sealing to the defendant clearly outweighs the

constitutionally-based value of the record remaining open to

society."    Id. at 151.   In making this determination, it would

be appropriate for a judge to consider the reason for the nolle

prosequi or dismissal and the specific harm the defendant risks

suffering if the record were to remain open to the public.     Id.

at 151-152.

       In Pon, the most recent case discussing § 100C, the court

revisited the "stringent standard for discretionary sealing" set

out in Doe and articulated a new standard for sealing under

§ 100C, second par., which the court deemed necessary to achieve

the legislative intent.    Pon, 469 Mass. at 297, 300.   As a basis

       Nonetheless, the court indicated that sealing under
       11

§ 100C, first par., "was to occur automatically on the
completion of a criminal case ending in one of the enumerated
dispositions." Doe, 420 Mass. at 146-147.
                                                                      15

for doing so, the court discussed the legislative history of §

100C and its counterparts, G. L. c. 276, §§ 100A and 100B.       Id.

at 301.

    Section 100C was "introduced in the 1970s shortly after the

passage of the initial CORI Act . . . which authorized the

creation of a comprehensive criminal justice information system

that would afford limited access to court-based criminal

records."   Pon, 469 Mass. at 301.    See St. 1973, c. 322, § 1,

inserting G. L. c. 276, § 100C.      In 1983, the Legislature

amended the first paragraph to require that the commissioner

seal the relevant records, rather than sealing only on the

request of the defendant.    See St. 1983, c. 312.     In 1984, the

Legislature disposed of the requirement that the commissioner

notify the clerk and probation officers of the proceedings

before sealing the records associated with them.     St. 1984,

c. 123.

    "In 2010, the Legislature enacted extensive reforms to the

CORI scheme, extending access to official CORI records to more

employers, housing providers, and other organizations, for

limited use, and simultaneously broadening the scope of the

sealing provisions to enable more individuals to shield their

records from public view."    Pon, 469 Mass. at 297.    As a part of

these changes, the Legislature deleted the phrase "except in

cases in which an order of probation has been terminated" from
                                                                  16

the second paragraph, permitting the court to seal cases in

which a defendant had received a continuance without a finding.12

St. 2010, c. 256, § 131.

       In enacting these statutes, the Legislature intended to

balance several interests, including the public's interest in

accessing certain types of records relating to criminal

proceedings and a defendant's interest in sealing the record of

his or her criminal history, "recognizing that ready access to a

defendant's prior criminal record might frustrate a defendant's

access to employment, housing, and social contacts necessary to

. . . rehabilitation" (citation omitted).    Pon, 469 Mass. at

301.    In light of the changes made by the Legislature, the court

concluded that the test in Doe "serves to frustrate rather than

further the Legislature's purpose by imposing too high a burden

of proof on the defendant."    Id. at 308.

       The court analyzed whether there is a First Amendment

presumption of access to the records of criminal cases that have

been dismissed or subject to nolle prosequi, and determined that

       Prior to the 2010 reforms, the second paragraph of § 100C
       12

began, "[i]n any criminal case wherein a nolle prosequi has been
entered, or a dismissal has been entered by the court, except in
cases in which an order of probation has been terminated."
G. L. c. 276, § 100C, as amended through St. 1984, c. 123.

     In 2018, the Legislature made changes to the fourth
paragraph of the statute, which is not at issue in this opinion.
See St. 2018, c. 69, §§ 193, 194.
                                                                   17

there was not.    Pon, 469 Mass. at 308-309, 311.   Despite its

overruling of Doe and its rejection of the First Amendment

analysis in Pokaski with respect to the records mentioned in

§ 100C, second par., the court concluded in Pon that the records

are subject to a common-law presumption of public access which

may be restricted on a showing of "good cause" meriting sealing.

Id. at 311-312.    In determining whether this standard is met,

judges should balance a variety of interests, considering

several factors discussed infra.    Id. at 314-319.   A judge no

longer needs to go through a two-hearing process, but instead

may conduct a single hearing on the merits once the judge

decides that a prima facie showing has been made on the

pleadings.   Id. at 321-322.   "After hearing the arguments and

balancing the interests at stake, if the judge is satisfied that

good cause merits sealing, the judge must make 'specific

findings on the record setting forth the interests considered by

the judge and the reasons for the order directing that such

sealing occur.'"   Id. at 322, quoting Doe, 420 Mass. at 152–153.

    Although Pon confined its holding to § 100C, second par.,

this court's reasoning supporting the conclusion that there is

no First Amendment presumption of access to records of a

criminal case ending in a nolle prosequi or a dismissal applies

with equal force to records of a criminal case wherein the

defendant has been found not guilty, where a no bill has been
                                                                    18

returned by a grand jury, or where a finding of no probable

cause has been made.   As the United States Supreme Court has not

yet addressed the First Amendment presumption of access as it

applies to these records, we are not bound by the First

Circuit's conclusion in Pokaski.    Pon, 469 Mass. at 308, quoting

Commonwealth v. Montanez, 388 Mass. 603, 604 (1983) ("we are not

bound by decisions of Federal courts except the decisions of the

United States Supreme Court on questions of Federal law").

    Applying the two-step test set out in Press-Enterprise Co.

v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II),

and examining the analysis conducted in Pon, it is clear that

the court's reasoning in Pon supports the conclusion that there

is no First Amendment presumption of access.    The first step

requires us to "consider[] whether the place and process have

historically been open to the press and general public."     Pon,

469 Mass. at 309, quoting Press-Enterprise II, supra at 8.

"[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to

inspect and copy public records and documents, including

judicial records and documents. . . .   It is uncontested,

however, that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is

not absolute" (footnote omitted).   Nixon v. Warner

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-598 (1978).

    Although court records historically have been accessible to

citizens of the Commonwealth, the court long has recognized that
                                                                  19

some classes of court records should not be available for public

review, may be impounded on a showing of good cause, and may not

be presumptively open for public view by operation of statute.

Pon, 469 Mass. at 309.   See New England Internet Café, LLC v.

Clerk of the Superior Court for Criminal Business in Suffolk

County, 462 Mass. 76, 90 (2012) (judge may seal documents on

showing of good cause); Republican Co. v. Appeals Court, 442

Mass. 218, 222-223 (2004) ("Massachusetts has long recognized a

common-law right of access to judicial records," but right of

access may be restricted on showing of "good cause"); Roe v.

Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418, 435 (2001) (records of conviction

are public records constitutionally required to be public);

Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. v. Appeals Court, 372 Mass. 539, 546

(1977) (acknowledging "general principle of publicity" while

recognizing statutory limits on access to court proceedings and

official records).

    The sealing of criminal records pursuant to § 100C would

not affect the public's ability to attend a criminal trial, or

the media's right to report on court proceedings or publish

truthful information relating to sealed proceedings.   Pon, 469

Mass. at 310.   "[Indeed,] the public had a right of access to

any court record before, during, and for a period of time after

the criminal trial [until the request for sealing was granted]."

Id., quoting State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 101
                                                                    20

Ohio St. 3d 382, 385 (2004).    The court in Pon concluded that

the records of closed cases resulting in a dismissal or nolle

prosequi have not been open historically to the press and the

public as have other "constitutionally cognizable elements of

criminal proceedings."   Pon, supra.   For the same reasons, the

records of closed cases that resulted in an acquittal after

trial, a finding of no probable cause, or a no bill from the

grand jury also have not been open historically to the press and

public.

    The second step requires the court to "consider 'whether

public access plays a significant positive role in the

functioning of the particular process in question.'"     Pon, 469

Mass. at 310, quoting Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8.     The

court concluded in Pon that "the availability of records of

criminal cases that have been closed after nonconviction" does

little to enhance the fairness and appearance of fairness of a

criminal trial.   Pon, supra.   Recognizing that criminal justice

agencies and several licensing commissions and other entities

with a particular need for the information will retain access to

sealed records, the court held that the integrity of the

processes at issue are preserved sufficiently.    Id. at 310-311.

See G. L. c. 6, §§ 172-178B (discussing CORI access to various

entities and related sections); G. L. c. 276, §§ 100A, 100B,

100D (sealing statutes).
                                                                  21

     Even more than criminal cases ending in a nolle prosequi or

a dismissal, criminal charges ending in a finding of not guilty,

no probable cause, or a no bill after grand jury proceedings are

"premised on a presumption of innocence."   Commonwealth v.

Vickey, 381 Mass. 762, 767 (1980).   See Police Comm'r of Boston,

374 Mass. at 657 ("The fact of an arrest without probable cause

followed by total exoneration would seem to negate any possible

value to law enforcement of an arrest record because the sum

total of such an adjudication is that there was no evidence in

any way connecting the defendant with participation in criminal

activity").   Particularly where a jury found the defendant not

guilty on particular charges against him and were deadlocked on

the remaining charges, sealing the criminal records relating to

those charges does not "truly impede" the public from ensuring

that "the operations of government institutions [are] subject to

effective public scrutiny," as the public and the media were

free to attend the trial and hear the evidence against the

defendant13 (citation omitted).   Pon, 469 Mass. at 310.   See

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 610 ("The requirement of a public trial is

satisfied by the opportunity of members of the public and the

press to attend the trial and to report what they have

     13Indeed, in the present case, the charges against the
defendant were published by at least one local news service.
                                                                    22

observed").   See also Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448

U.S. 555, 572-573 (1980) ("Instead of acquiring information

about trials by firsthand observation or by word of mouth from

those who attended, people now acquire it chiefly through the

print and electronic media").    Therefore, the First Amendment

presumption of access does not apply to nonconvictions mentioned

in § 100C, first par.14

       Although these records are not entitled to a First

Amendment presumption of public access, they "are subject to a

common-law presumption of public access."    Pon, 469 Mass. at

311.    "In interpreting a statute, we presume that when the

Legislature enacts a law it is aware of the statutory and common

law that governed the matter in which it legislates."       Globe

Newspaper Co., petitioner, 461 Mass. 113, 117 (2011).       We review

the interpretation of a statute de novo.    Commonwealth v. K.W.,

       Our conclusion is bolstered by the fact that numerous
       14

States have statutes commanding the automatic sealing of certain
nonconvictions. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-705(1)(a), (a.5);
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a(a), (b); Fla. Stat. § 943.0595(2)(a),
(3)(a); Ga. Code Ann. § 35-3-37(h); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 431.076(1)(a); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.105(1); Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-3523(3); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 651:5(II-a)(a); N.J. Rev.
Stat. § 2C:52-6(a)(1); N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 160.50(1)
(McKinney); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9121, 9122.2; R.I. Gen. Laws
§ 12-1-12.1; Utah Code Ann. § 77-40a-201(1)(a). See also State
v. Apt, 319 Conn. 494, 510 (2015); Doe v. State, 347 Ga. App.
246, 247 (2018), quoting Ga. Code Ann. § 35-3-37(a)(6); State v.
Coble, 299 Neb. 434, 440 (2018); State v. Williams, 173 N.H.
540, 545 (2020); People v. Anonymous, 34 N.Y.3d 631, 637 (2020);
State v. Diamante, 83 A.3d 546, 550-551 (R.I. 2014).
                                                                   23

490 Mass. 619, 624 (2022).   "Where the words [of a statute] are

'plain and unambiguous' in their meaning, we view them as

'conclusive as to legislative intent.'"   Id., quoting Dorrian v.

LVNV Funding, LLC, 479 Mass. 265, 271 (2018).   "Where the words

of the statute are ambiguous, we strive 'to make it an effectual

piece of legislation in harmony with common sense and sound

reason' and consistent with legislative intent."   Pon, supra at

302, quoting Wolfe v. Gormally, 440 Mass. 699, 704 (2004).

    "'Unless there is a violation of a constitutional guaranty,

the Legislature may modify or abrogate common law practices'

regarding public access to judicial records."   Globe Newspaper

Co., petitioner, 461 Mass. at 118, quoting New Bedford Standard-

Times Publ. Co. v. Clerk of the Third Dist. Court of Bristol,

377 Mass. 404, 410 (1979).   "[W]e do not interpret a statute to

modify or abrogate an area traditionally guided by the common

law, such as public access to judicial records, unless the

intent to do so is clear."   Globe Newspaper Co., petitioner,

supra.   See Chelsea Hous. Auth. v. McLaughlin, 482 Mass. 579,

590 (2019), quoting Riley v. Davison Constr. Co., 381 Mass. 432,

438 (1980) ("statute is not to be interpreted as effecting a

material change in or a repeal of the common law unless the

intent to do so is clearly expressed").   Where the common-law

doctrine "'is so repugnant to and inconsistent with' the statute

that 'both cannot stand,'" the statute preempts the common-law
                                                                  24

doctrine by "necessary implication."   Chelsea Hous. Auth., supra

at 591, quoting George v. National Water Main Cleaning Co., 477

Mass. 371, 378 (2017).

    The plain language of § 100C, first par., evidences the

Legislature's clear intent to abrogate the common-law

presumption of access to the nonconvictions explicitly

referenced where it commands that "the commissioner . . .     shall

seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his

files" and the clerk and probation officers "shall likewise seal

the records of the proceedings in their files," unless "the

defendant makes a written request to the commissioner not to

seal the records of the proceedings" (emphases added).   G. L.

c. 276, § 100C.   See Johnson v. District Attorney for the N.

Dist., 342 Mass. 212, 215 (1961) ("The word 'shall' in a statute

is commonly a word of imperative obligation and is inconsistent

with the idea of discretion").

    Although the court need not do so where the language of the

statute is unambiguous, going beyond the language, the intent of

the Legislature supports such an interpretation.   The 2010

reforms to the CORI scheme "strongly indicate that the

Legislature was concerned with the collateral consequences of

criminal records and sought to make sealing broadly available to

individuals whose criminal histories or records no longer

presented concerns of recidivism."   Pon, 469 Mass. at 306.
                                                                    25

"Overall, the legislative history unmistakably suggests that the

Legislature's intent in enacting the 2010 reforms was to

recalibrate the balance between protecting public safety and

facilitating the reintegration of criminal defendants by

removing barriers to housing and employment."    Id. at 307.     Even

after Pon's invitation to the Legislature to "revisit[] the

language of" § 100C, first par., in its 2018 reforms to the

statute, the Legislature left the language alone.    Id. at 313

n.24.   See St. 2018, c. 69.   We see this as a "clear" intent to

abrogate the common-law right to public access to the

nonconvictions at issue.   Globe Newspaper Co., petitioner, 461

Mass. at 118.

    We disagree with the Commonwealth's assertion that § 100C,

first par., does not apply because the jury did not acquit the

defendant on all six indictments.   At the outset, the language

of the statute commands sealing of "said court appearance and

disposition" in "any criminal case wherein the defendant has

been found not guilty[,] . . . a no bill has been returned by

the grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause has been made

by the court."   G. L. c. 276, § 100C.   This general language

would seem to include favorable charges in cases where the

defendant was acquitted on some charges, but not all.    If the

Legislature intended to limit sealing to cases where a defendant
                                                                  26

is acquitted on all charges, it presumably would have said so.15

See Commonwealth v. Rossetti, 489 Mass. 589, 593 (2022), quoting

Commonwealth v. Williamson, 462 Mass. 676, 679 (2012) (we

"presume, as we must, that the Legislature intended what the

words of the statute say").   Contrast Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-

705(1)(a)(II) (commanding sealing where "defendant is acquitted

of all counts in the case"); R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-1-12.1(b)

(court shall seal records of criminal case where person

acquitted of all counts in case); Utah Code Ann. § 77-40a-

201(1)(a) (automatic expungement of records in "case that

resulted in an acquittal on all charges"); State v. Diamante, 83

A.3d 546, 550-551 (R.I. 2014) (must be acquitted of "all

counts").   Further, even if the statutory language were

ambiguous, the legislative history, discussed supra, suggests

that the intent of the Legislature was to effectuate sealing in

a wider array of cases.   Interpreting the statute to require

sealing of the records related to any charge where the defendant

     15Were we to adopt the Commonwealth's interpretation of the
statute, where a defendant is found not guilty on one charge,
but guilty on five other charges within the same case, the
language of the statute requiring sealing in "any criminal case
wherein the defendant has been found not guilty" would seem to
result in sealing of the records relating to all the charges,
including the convictions. This would be nonsensical. See
Commonwealth v. Peterson, 476 Mass. 163, 167 (2017), quoting
Commonwealth v. Parent, 465 Mass. 395, 409-410 (2013) ("we do
not adhere blindly to a literal reading of a statute if doing so
would yield an 'absurd' or 'illogical' result").
                                                                      27

was found not guilty, a no bill was returned by the grand jury,

or a finding of no probable cause was made would facilitate that

intent.16

       2.   Standard of review.   We review a judge's decision on a

petition to seal a defendant's criminal record for an abuse of

discretion.    Pon, 469 Mass. at 299.   "Under the abuse of

discretion standard, the issue is whether the judge's decision

resulted from 'a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors

relevant to the decision . . . such that the decision falls

outside the range of reasonable alternatives' (quotation and

citation omitted)."     Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664,

672 (2015), S.C., 478 Mass. 189 (2017), quoting L.L. v.

Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169, 185 n.27 (2014).      Where the judge's

decision "is based in part on whether the judge made an error of

law in interpreting the relevant statutes[,] we review the

interpretation of [the] statute de novo."      K.W., 490 Mass. at

624.

       3.   Denial of defendant's petition.   a.   Charges of which

the defendant was found not guilty.     As discussed supra, for

       We understand the judge's point that "sealing all court
       16

and probation records concerning the [n]ot [g]uilty [c]ounts in
isolation would be an extremely difficult task." Nonetheless,
this was the Legislature's clear intent in enacting the statute.
Were there to be a case where some counts are sealed and some
are not, we presume that redaction of information within the
records would achieve the intended outcome.
                                                                      28

closed criminal cases falling under the first paragraph of

§ 100C, sealing is mandatory.     With respect to the charges of

which the defendant was found not guilty, the judge erred in

failing to seal the records of these counts.

    In his memorandum of decision on the defendant's petition

to seal, the judge stated:    "Where the petitioner 'has been

found not guilty by the court or jury, . . .' the petitioner

must 'prove that the value of sealing . . . clearly outweighs

the constitutionally-based value of the record remaining open to

society.'    Pon, 469 Mass. at 312."17   He expressed that this

court, in Pon, held "that, while the holding of Pokaski may

apply to petitions to seal filed pursuant to the first paragraph

of [§] 100C . . . it does not apply to petitions to seal filed

pursuant to the second paragraph of [§] 100C."      Although he was

correct to direct "[t]he intellectually inquisitive reader who

wishes to fully understand the basis for the distinction" to

Pon, supra at 313 n.24, the judge misinterpreted the court's

directive.

    In Pon, 469 Mass. at 313 n.24, the first paragraph of

§ 100C was "not at issue."    The court "decline[d] to extend

[its] holding and the analysis [it] employ[ed] to [the first

paragraph] of the statute."     Id.   It discussed the practice of

    17 The judge also indicated this confusion at the motion
hearing.
                                                                    29

the District Court Department of the Trial Court to seal records

of acquittals or where judges made a finding of no probable

cause under the standard set out in Pokaski and reinforced by

Doe.   Id.   The court stated:

       "[U]ntil the Legislature revisits the language of [§ 100C],
       first par., or until the issue of its interpretation comes
       before us, we observe that the solution adopted by the
       District Court is a reasonable one, as long as it is
       modified consistent with our holding in this case: that
       sealing may occur where good cause justifies the overriding
       of the general principle of publicity" (emphases added).

Id.    Therefore, before our clarification in the present case,

the judge should have applied the good cause standard to both

the counts that resulted in verdicts of not guilty and the entry

of a nolle prosequi.    Now, however, it is clear that where a

defendant stands acquitted on a charge (or a no bill is returned

by the grand jury or a finding of no probable cause has been

made by the court), the records pertaining to those charges

should be sealed, unless the defendant "makes a written request

to the commissioner" not to seal the records of the proceedings.

G. L. c. 276, § 100C.

       The defendant requests that, if this court "concludes that

the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the petition

as to the dismissed counts," we should remand the entire

petition, including the not guilty counts, to allow him to
                                                                  30

decide how he would like to proceed.18   Because we remand the

case for the judge to illustrate his reasoning underlying his

findings on the nolle prosequi counts, infra, we remand the

petition on the not guilty counts as well so that the defendant

may clarify his intentions.   If he decides that he would like

the records pertaining to his acquittals to remain open to the

public, he should make this clear in the Superior Court, and he

must make a written request to the commissioner not to seal such

records.    G. L. c. 276, § 100C.

     b.    Charges resulting in nolle prosequis.   As to the counts

that resulted in nolle prosequis, the defendant argues that the

judge purported to apply the correct standard, but misapplied it

by making clear errors of fact and judgment in weighing the

relevant factors.   More specifically, he argues that the judge

failed to recognize that he was acquitted not only of carrying a

firearm, but also of so much of the rape and robbery counts as

alleged that he possessed a firearm; that the judge erred in his

factual findings regarding the time elapsed since the trial and

the nolle prosequis, which weighed heavily in his analysis; that

the relevant time period to assess the defendant's "likelihood

     18He admits that the judge's question "whether it would
benefit [the defendant] to seal all court records pertaining to
the [n]ot [g]uilty [c]ounts, while leaving the records
pertaining to just the [n]olle [p]rosequi [c]ounts open to the
public" has some force.
                                                                     31

of recidivism or success" is the time elapsed since the

defendant's release into the community, not the time since the

charges were nol prossed; and that the judge failed to consider

several highly pertinent factors, such as the extreme stigma

attached to the charges, the defendant's age, and his lack of

criminal history.   Last, the defendant asserts that any

discussion of "rehabilitation" is improper where he never has

been convicted of a crime, and the judge gave insufficient

weight to the interests of the defendant and the Commonwealth in

keeping the records private.

       The Commonwealth argues that the judge properly considered

all the factors set out in Pon.     For the reasons discussed

infra, we remand the matter to the Superior Court for the judge

to clarify his reasoning.

       The second paragraph of § 100C states, in part:   "In any

criminal case wherein a nolle prosequi has been entered, . . .

and it appears to the court that substantial justice would best

be served, the court shall direct the clerk to seal the records

of the proceedings in his files."    G. L. c. 276, § 100C.      In

demonstrating that "substantial justice [will] best be served,"

a "defendant must establish that good cause exists for sealing";

in other words, the reason for sealing "justifies the overriding

of the general principle of publicity."     Pon, 469 Mass. at 312-

313.   "Although a good cause analysis requires consideration of
                                                                    32

similar factors as an analysis where the First Amendment is

implicated, . . . the weight of the scales is more balanced, and

the burden on the defendant is somewhat lessened."       Id.

    When assessing whether a defendant has met the "good cause"

standard for sealing, a judge must balance the numerous

interests at stake.       Pon, 469 Mass. at 314.   "If, after

balancing those interests, the judge determines that the

defendant has done so, the substantial justice standard will be

satisfied."    Id.     In conducting this balancing test, a judge

"should begin by recognizing the public interests at stake."

Id. at 315.

    Concomitant with the common-law presumption of access, the

public has an interest in knowing about criminal charges so that

it may hold the government accountable for the administration of

justice.   Pon, 469 Mass. at 315.      On the other end of the

spectrum, judges must acknowledge the interests of the

Commonwealth and the defendant in keeping the information

private.   Id.    "These interests include the compelling

governmental interests in reducing recidivism, facilitating

reintegration, and ensuring self-sufficiency by promoting

employment and housing opportunities for former criminal

defendants."     Id.    In balancing these interests, a judge may

take judicial notice of the fact that the existence of a
                                                                    33

criminal record may "present barriers to housing and employment

opportunities."    Id. at 316.

       Although judges may consider any factors relevant to their

weighing of the interests at stake, the court in Pon set out

particularly relevant factors for a judge to consider, which the

judge noted in his decision here, stating that he "considered"

all the factors.    The first factor to be considered focuses on

"the disadvantages the defendant claims to face due to the

availability of his . . . criminal record."     Pon, 469 Mass. at

316.    This may include any effect on the defendant's employment,

housing, ability to participate in community or volunteer

activities, ability to advance economically or professionally,

and reliance on public assistance.     Id. at 317.

       The defendant, in his petition, identified the

disadvantages that he suffers from as a result of his criminal

record, including preclusion of further employment opportunities

and better paying jobs.19    In his decision, the judge recognized,

in a sentence, that the defendant "undoubtedly" faces

disadvantages as a result of the availability of his criminal

record.     Although it would have been better if the judge

expanded on this with specific details from the defendant's

       At the hearing, the defendant expanded on particular
       19

employment opportunities of which he was deprived, alleging that
these opportunities were withheld because of his record in this
case.
                                                                   34

case, it is implicit that the judge acknowledged the profound

effect such serious charges on his record must have.     On remand,

we urge the judge to elaborate on these disadvantages in order

to afford them the proper weight and assure the parties that the

judge has considered the issue adequately.

      The second factor to consider, as set out in Pon, is

"evidence of rehabilitation."   Pon, 469 Mass. at 317.

      "Employment attempts, community or civic engagement,
      successful completion of a probationary period or sobriety
      or mental health treatment, lack of further contact with
      the criminal justice system, or other accomplishments may
      weigh in favor of sealing by demonstrating that the
      defendant bears a low risk of recidivism and a likelihood
      of success in future employment."

Id.   The defendant's argument that where he never has been

convicted of a crime or admitted to sufficient facts for a

finding of guilty, he should not be required to show "evidence

of rehabilitation," is persuasive.   Cf. Commonwealth v. Healy,

452 Mass. 510, 515 (2008) (in sentencing, "[j]udges may not

punish the defendant for offenses of which he or she does not

stand convicted in the particular case"); In re Kollman, 210

N.J. 557, 576 (2012) ("Facts related to an arrest that did not

result in conviction, or to a dismissed charge, may . . . offer

insight into an applicant's character and conduct. . . .     To

assess the public interest . . . courts [may] consider conduct

before the time of conviction . . . [only so far as they are]

established or undisputed facts, not unproven allegations").
                                                                   35

Contrast Pon, 469 Mass. at 298 (defendant admitted to sufficient

facts for guilty finding).   The judge should have recognized

this in his discussion of the factors.

     Even if we were to assume that evidence of rehabilitation

is applicable to the defendant, he demonstrated that he has

taken a number of steps suggesting "rehabilitation," as it is

defined in Pon.   He had not faced any new criminal charges

following the case at issue and, as of the date of the hearing,

had remained free of charges for over five years since his

release on bail in 2016.20   Further, he had maintained employment

since his release.

     Aside from mentioning that the defendant "presented some

'evidence of rehabilitation,'" the judge discussed none of these

factors.   This was an abuse of discretion, requiring remand for

the judge to expand on his consideration of all the relevant

factors.   On remand, we urge the judge to describe in detail his

weighing of these positive factors in addition to those that he

found weighed against sealing in order to illustrate the

"balancing" test that Pon requires judges to conduct.

     The third factor for the judge to consider is "other

evidence on whether sealing [the records] would alleviate the

     20Where we have not been alerted otherwise by the
Commonwealth, it appears that the defendant now has gone over
seven years without being charged with any new offenses.
                                                                     36

identified disadvantages."    Pon, 469 Mass. at 317.    Some

examples of such evidence may include the nature of the crimes

with which the defendant was charged; the stigma associated with

the charges; whether the defendant would pose an additional

safety threat to the community were his or her record to be

sealed; and whether the defendant maintains any sense of

privacy, i.e., whether his or her charges were newsworthy to the

extent that sealing would not provide a benefit.       Id. at 317-

318.

       The judge indicated, in his written decision, that

insufficient time had passed to determine whether the sealing of

the defendant's record would pose an additional safety threat to

the community.   Nonetheless, the judge did not mention the

stigma associated with the particularly abhorrent crimes with

which the defendant was charged, nor did he discuss the

publicity that the defendant's case received in the news.

Although counsel mentioned these factors at the hearing, we

cannot determine from the record whether the judge considered

them or, if he did, what weight he gave them.    It is necessary

that the judge explicitly state for the record the factors he

considered.   To not do so, where they were relevant to the case

and discussed at the hearing, was an abuse of discretion.       See,

e.g., Commonwealth v. Nash, 486 Mass. 394, 414 (2020) (single

justice abused her discretion in assessment of security factors
                                                                   37

when determining whether to grant motion for stay of sentence

pending appeal, where her assessment was "underinclusive");

Commonwealth v. Grassie, 476 Mass. 202, 214-215 (2017), S.C.,

482 Mass. 1017 (2019) ("there must be some mechanism by which an

appellate court can meaningfully assess whether a judge acted

appropriately in granting or denying [Mass. R. Crim. P.

25 (b) (2), as amended, 420 Mass. 1502 (1995)], relief.     For

instance, if a judge grants a motion to reduce a verdict, the

expectation is that the judge will explain his or her reasoning

in a written ruling or an oral explanation on the record");

L.L., 470 Mass. at 185 n.27 ("judge's discretionary decision

constitutes an abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge

made 'a clear error of judgment in weighing' the factors

relevant to the decision such that the decision falls outside

the range of reasonable alternatives" [citation omitted]).

       Fourth, the judge should consider "the defendant's

circumstances at the time of the offense."     Pon, 469 Mass. at

318.   This includes the defendant's age, insofar as it speaks to

his capacity for rehabilitation, and his prior criminal history

leading up to the offense.    Id.   As the defendant points out,

the judge made no mention of the defendant's lack of a criminal

record.    Aside from a dismissal in 2012 on court costs of a

charge of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license,

the defendant had no criminal record prior to the charges at
                                                                    38

issue.    Where the defendant was aged forty-four at the time of

his petition, his inexperience in the criminal justice system

has some weight, deserving of mention in the judge's decision.

See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. Sex Offender

Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612, 621 (2010) (several scientific and

statistical studies "conclude that age is an important factor in

determining the risk of recidivism and that such risk diminishes

significantly as an offender ages").

       In discussing the fifth factor, "the passage of time since

the date of the offense and the date of the dismissal or nolle

prosequi," we note several factual errors.    Pon, 469 Mass. at

318.   The judge wrote that it had been "three years since the

dismissal" of the counts in which a nolle prosequi was entered,

and he indicated that the trial took place in December 2017,

"less than five years ago."   In fact, at the time of the

issuance of the judge's decision in February 2022, it had been

nearly four years since the nolle prosequi issued, and the trial

was conducted in December 2015, over six years prior.     We do not

mean to suggest that it was improper for the judge to conclude

that not enough time had passed from the date of the offense,

trial, or nolle prosequi to merit sealing, and arguably the

difference in the calculation of time is insignificant.     But

where the judge made factual errors crucial to a factor that was

a primary influence in his decision, we cannot determine whether
                                                                    39

his conclusion would be the same were he to have referenced the

correct time periods.21   On remand, the judge should address

this.

     As to the defendant's assertion that the "relevant

timeframe [to consider] was the six years during which [he] had

lived in the community without incident following his release

from pretrial detention," Pon instructs that both "the passage

of time since the date of the offense and the date of the

dismissal or nolle prosequi" are important factors (emphases

added).   Pon, 469 Mass. at 318.   Admitting that the passage of

time since the defendant was in the community after he was

charged with the offenses is relevant to "the risk of

recidivism," the judge would not have abused his discretion if

he had considered the correct period of time since his remaining

charges were nol prossed:   almost four years at the issuance of

his decision and over five years to date.    See id. ("If sealing

is sought immediately following the disposition, there may be

     21The judge indicated that the passage of time since
dismissal of the nolle prosequi counts was insufficient for him
to assess accurately the defendant's likelihood of recidivism
and the additional safety threat sealing would pose. He also
indicated that a prospective employer might want to know that
"less than five years ago," a "jury deadlocked over the question
of whether [the defendant] had kidnapped, robbed, and raped a
woman at gunpoint." Further contributing to the error, the
judge appeared to be incorrect about the "at gunpoint" comment:
the parties agreed that the trial judge reduced the aggravated
portion of the remaining rape count and ordered the firearm
provision removed from the robbery count.
                                                                  40

concerns that the public has not had sufficient opportunity for

access, and that the defendant may be likely to reoffend").

    Finally, the judge heavily relied on the sixth factor, "the

nature of and reasons for the disposition," in coming to his

conclusion to deny the defendant's petition to seal.   Pon, 469

Mass. at 319.   The judge stated:

    "The [c]ourt . . . strongly believes that the 'nature and
    reasons for the disposition' of the [n]olle [p]rosequi
    [c]ounts against [the defendant] constitutes information
    that the public has a 'general right to know.' Although
    [the defendant] is correct that the jury . . . 'did not
    find the allegations (of the [n]olle [p]rosequi [c]ounts)
    to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt' . . . neither did
    the jury exonerate him of those charges. Indeed, someone
    interested in [the defendant's] past -- including a
    prospective employer thinking of hiring [him] for a
    position that would bring him into frequent contact with
    members of the public -- might very well want to know that,
    less than five years ago, a . . . jury deadlocked over the
    question of whether [the defendant] had kidnapped, robbed,
    and raped a woman at gunpoint."

Aside from the factual error where the defendant was acquitted

of the aggravating portion of the commission of his crimes at

gunpoint, this factor undeniably is important.   The particular

reason for the nolle prosequis, that the victim relapsed and was

unable to testify, does not speak to the defendant's innocence

on the charges.   See id. ("Defendants who were subject to

wrongful accusations present the strongest case for sealing").

Despite his consideration of this relevant factor, where the

judge failed to discuss all the factors mentioned supra in favor

of the defendant and the Commonwealth's interests in keeping the
                                                                  41

records private, we cannot be sure that he appropriately

balanced the interests relevant to a reasoned determination

whether "substantial justice would best be served" by sealing.

    Conclusion.   We take no position on whether the defendant's

record should be sealed on the counts in which the Commonwealth

entered a nolle prosequi.   We remand for the purpose of allowing

the judge to adequately address and illustrate all the relevant

factors in his balancing of the various interests.   On remand,

the defendant should clarify his position with respect to

automatic sealing of the charges of which he was acquitted.     If

he determines that he would prefer them to remain open to the

public, he must make a written request to the commissioner not

to seal those records.

                                   So ordered.