BOSTON, March 18, 2015—The Massachusetts Appeals Court today reversed a lower court judge’s spontaneous dismissal of a drug distribution case, calling it “an abuse of discretion” and remanding the case for further proceedings.

LAURA BUTLER (D.O.B. 10/17/77) of Wakefield was observed selling her prescription gabapentin, a psychoactive medication sometimes abused as a tranquilizer, near Haymarket station on Nov. 14, 2012. A complaint issued against her the next day for two counts of distributing a Class E substance in a school or park zone.

Butler’s attorney was negotiating a potential plea and, at a 2013 court date, asked for a continuance. Prosecutors would have joined in that request, because – at the height of the DPH drug lab crisis – testing to certify the pills as gabapentin had not yet been conducted. Testing in such a case, when the charge is for unlawfully distributing prescription medication by a defendant lawfully possessing them, is less urgent than when the substance at issue must be proven to be cocaine, heroin, or another illicit substance.

Instead, and over the objections of prosecutors, Judge Raymond Dougan, Jr., spontaneously dismissed the case for failure to provide drug certificates that could not be provided because they did not yet exist.

Prosecutors appealed the decision and, as on countless prior occasions, Dougan’s order was reversed.

“There is no indication on this record that the prosecutor acted in a ‘cavalier’ fashion or that the defendant was inconvenienced by the delay in providing the discovery; indeed, the defendant was not contesting that the drugs in issue were her own prescription drugs and counsel informed the court that because they were prescription drugs he was ‘not as concerned’ about the delay in providing the drug certificate,” Justices R. Marc Kantrowitz, R. Malcolm Graham, and Gary Katzmann wrote in the 10-page decision. “[T]here is no indication of deliberate governmental misconduct that might warrant the sanction of dismissal.”

The Appeals Court further noted that the defendant had not objected to any prior continuances and there was no explanation for the judge’s decision to dismiss the case rather than take a less extreme measure such as having the drug certificates expedited.

“[W]e are left to conclude that the dismissal, which the defendant did not seek, ‘falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives’ … and was thus an abuse of discretion,” the justices wrote.

Prosecutors praised the decision to reverse a judge who used his power to engineer the outcome he apparently wanted rather than one supported by facts, law, or precedent.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.