Commonwealth v. Richard Melanson.

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

22-P-863

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

RICHARD MELANSON.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The Commonwealth appeals from an order of the District

Court, dismissing a criminal complaint against the defendant

following the allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss.

We reverse in part.

The defendant's motion to dismiss asserted that the

Commonwealth's application for criminal complaint "contained

material misleading statements and omissions undermining the

integrity of all [c]ounts in the [c]omplaint," and the judge

dismissed the complaint on that basis.1 Specifically, the

1 The defendant also asserted that the application for criminal
complaint failed to establish the minimal elements of the
charged offenses, but the judge did not address that claim.
Though we may affirm an order of the trial court on any ground
supported by the record, we agree with the Commonwealth that
(with the exception of count one) the evidence recited in the
application sufficed to support the complaint, for substantially
the reasons explained at pages twenty-six through thirty-two of
defendant suggested that the Commonwealth failed to include

information in its application for criminal complaint that might

have called into question the credibility of the complaining

witness. However, the defendant has not demonstrated that the

police officer who prepared the application for complaint was

aware of the information cited by the defendant.2 In any event,

the information did not demonstrate that the evidence supporting

the application was untrue; it was simply of the type that might

be used, at trial, to impeach or otherwise call into question

the credibility of that evidence.3 See Commonwealth v. Graham,

431 Mass. 282, 290 (2000). It did not distort the evidence, or

display an intent to deceive the magistrate. Contrast

Commonwealth v. O'Dell, 392 Mass. 445, 446-447 (1984). In a

criminal complaint process, the Commonwealth does not have a

duty to produce "all available exculpatory evidence," but only

that evidence which would "gravely undermine evidence supporting

the Commonwealth's brief. The defendant does not argue
otherwise in his brief. As to count one of the complaint, the
Commonwealth has conceded that there was no probable cause to
support it, and that it does not seek by this appeal to
reinstate it.
2 To the extent the defendant faults the Commonwealth for not

conducting a more thorough investigation to uncover such
evidence, the criticism is misplaced. See Commonwealth v.
Richardson, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 82, 84 (2000).
3 We need not discuss in detail the evidence the defendant

describes as exculpatory, other than to observe that, as the
Commonwealth's brief explains at pages twenty-four to twenty-
six, it largely reflected competing narratives of the relevant
incidents, related by different witnesses.

2
probable cause." Commonwealth v. Biasiucci, 60 Mass. App. Ct.

734, 738 (2004).

The allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss counts

two through four of the complaint was error, and the order of

the District Court is accordingly reversed as to those counts.

As to count one, the order is affirmed.

So ordered.

By the Court (Green, C.J.,
Shin & Hershfang, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: April 20, 2023.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

3