Pinney v. Commonwealth

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.

Petitioner's first trial ended in a mistrial. After Petitioner successfully moved to suppress a preindictment buccal swab obtained by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth successfully moved to obtain a postindictment buccal swab from Petitioner. The superior court allowed the motion. Petitioner sought relief, and a single justice of the court denied relief, concluding that Petitioner had an adequate alternative remedy. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.

Download PDF

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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) 5571030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-13100 FREDERICK PINNEY vs. COMMONWEALTH. July 1, 2021. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Evidence, Buccal swab. Practice, Criminal, Discovery. The defendant, Frederick Pinney, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3.1 We affirm. Pinney stands indicted for murder. After his first trial ended in a mistrial, Pinney successfully obtained suppression of a preindictment buccal swab obtained by the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Pinney, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 392, 393 (2020). The Commonwealth subsequently moved to obtain a postindictment buccal swab from Pinney, which the Superior Court allowed. Pinney sought relief in the county court, and a single justice of this court denied relief, in pertinent part, because the motion judge's decision was a "routine discovery ruling," and Pinney therefore "has an adequate alternative remedy in that he can raise the issue of the propriety of the order compelling the production of the buccal swab in a direct appeal, should he be convicted." The petition was originally filed as an application for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2). A single justice's denial of such an application is not appealable. See Commonwealth v. Santry, 469 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2014); Cowell v. Commonwealth, 432 Mass. 1028, 1028 (2000). However, the single justice treated the petition as one pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, and we do the same. 1 2 The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a petitioner seeking relief from an interlocutory ruling of the trial court to "set forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means." Pinney has failed to demonstrate the lack of an adequate remedy on direct appeal. As to that issue, Pinney argues that "[i]t would be fundamentally unfair to require [him] to go through a second trial that is infected from the outset with reversible error." It is well settled, however, that petitions for extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, are not substitutes for the normal trial and appellate process. And we have repeatedly stated that "[d]iscovery matters such as this are routinely addressed on direct appeal." Martinez v. Commonwealth, 475 Mass. 1001, 1001 (2016), citing Deming v. Commonwealth, 438 Mass. 1007, 1007 (2002). See generally Commonwealth v. Fontanez, 482 Mass. 22, 24-25 (2019). "If [Pinney] is convicted of any offense, he will have the opportunity to raise his issues in the ordinary appellate process." Martinez, supra. The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Linda J. Thompson & John M. Thompson for the petitioner.

Primary Holding

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.