Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts,
Appeal from order of single justice. Juvenile Court,
Delinquent child. Practice, Criminal, Juvenile
delinquency proceeding, Complaint, Dismissal.
juvenile appeals from a judgment of the county court denying,
without a hearing, his petition for relief under G. L. c.
211, § 3. The juvenile has been charged by a delinquency
complaint with making a bomb threat. A judge in the Juvenile
Court, apparently believing that she lacked authority to
dismiss the complaint prior to arraignment, arraigned the
juvenile. But see Commonwealth v.
Humberto H., 466 Mass. 562, 575-576 (2013) (Juvenile
Court judge has discretion to dismiss complaint prior to
arraignment where complaint is not supported by probable
cause). See also Commonwealth v.
Mogelinski, 473 Mass. 164, 166-167 (2015) (authority to
dismiss before arraignment where judge determines that
Juvenile Court lacks jurisdiction). The following day, the
judge reconsidered that decision, determined she did have
authority to consider a motion to dismiss before arraignment,
and entered an order vacating the arraignment of the juvenile
and directing the probation department to expunge the
juvenile's court activity record information (CARI). The
probation department moved for reconsideration, arguing that
it was obligated to maintain CARI records and could not
expunge them. After further briefing and argument, the judge
again reversed herself, reinstating the juvenile's
arraignment and vacating the expungement order. The
juvenile's G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition sought relief
from this interlocutory ruling. We affirm the judgment.
case is before us on the juvenile's memorandum and
appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass.
1301 (2001), which requires a party challenging 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." The juvenile has not met his burden under the
rule. He argues that review in the ordinary appellate process
would not be adequate because he would irrevocably lose the
opportunity to have the complaint dismissed without creating
a CARI record. We have recently rejected similar arguments in
determining that there was no absolute right to immediate
interlocutory review, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3, of
the denial of a motion to dismiss. See N.M. v.
Commonwealth, 478 Mass. 89, 91 (2017) (loss of privacy
and confidentiality protections afforded by delinquency
proceedings does not entitle juvenile to extraordinary review
of denial of motion to dismiss youthful offender indictment);
Brea v. Commonwealth, 473 Mass.
1012, 1012-1013 (2015) (fact that arraignment appears on
adult defendant's criminal record does not entitle
defendant to extraordinary review of denial of prearraignment
motion to dismiss).
the juvenile is, strictly speaking, not challenging the
denial of a motion to dismiss, the effect is the same: the
case against him will proceed, along with the creation of a
sealed CARI record, even if the charge is ultimately resolved
in his favor. These circumstances are typical of juvenile
proceedings and do not entitle the juvenile as a matter of
right to invoke our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 211,
case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a
memorandum of law.
N. Schneiderman for the juvenile.
 The juvenile was also charged, in a
separate delinquency complaint, with threatening to commit a
crime. That complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the
 At that time, the juvenile had not
filed a written motion to dismiss the complaint. However, his
attorney did argue at the arraignment that the judge had
authority to consider such a motion before
 The juvenile also contends that a
systemic problem exists in the juvenile justice system that
requires this court to instruct judges on what the law is
regarding their authority to dismiss a complaint prior to
arraignment. This claim is beyond the scope of rule 2:21,
which concerns only the alternative remedies, if any,
available to the particular petitioner.
Moreover, the single justice did not decide the
petition on the merits or report the case to the full court
to address the juvenile's claim of systemic error, and we
are loath to second-guess her discretion in this respect.
Jackson v.Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 1008,
1009 (2002) . In any event, we think Commonwealth v.
Humberto H., 466 Mass. 562 (2013), and Commonwealth
v.Mogelinski, 473 Mass. 164 ...