The full text opinion may be found here.
The Appeals Court has ruled that a Superior Court judge committed no abuse of discretion in suppressing the evidence in a cocaine case due to the commonwealth’s unpreparedness and inability to proceed at the suppression motion hearing.
“The judge’s disposition may have been severe,” Appeals Court Judge Mitchell J. Sikora said, “but it was not abusive of discretion. It came after a series of postponements, applied the criteria of the standing rule and rested upon the essential authority of the court to manage the schedule of its criminal sessions. We affirm his orders denying the Commonwealth’s motion to continue and allowing the defendants’ motion to suppress.”
The commonwealth had argued on appeal that Judge Cornelius J. Moriarty II erred in taking such a serious step without holding a hearing.
When two defendants filed a suppression motion, the court held that a judge acted permissibly in granting it, without a hearing, based on the commonwealth’s lack of preparedness and inability to proceed at the suppression hearing.