Section 1101. Applicability of Evidentiary Sections
(a) Proceedings to Which Applicable. Except as provided in Subsection (c), these sections apply to all actions and proceedings in the courts of the Commonwealth.
(b) Law of Privilege. The sections with respect to privileges apply at all stages of all actions, cases, and proceedings.
(c) Sections Inapplicable. These sections (other than those with respect to privileges) do not apply in the following situations:
(1) Preliminary Determinations of Fact. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to the admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court as addressed in Section 104(a), Preliminary Questions: Determinations Made by the Court.
(2) Grand Jury. Proceedings before grand juries.
(3) Miscellaneous Proceedings. Most administrative proceedings; bail proceedings; bar discipline proceedings; civil motor vehicle infraction hearings; issuance of process (warrant, complaint, capias, summons); precomplaint, show cause hearings; pretrial dangerousness hearings; prison disciplinary hearings; probation violation hearings; restitution hearings; sentencing; sexual offender registry board hearings; small claims sessions; and summary contempt proceedings.
(d) Motions to Suppress. The law of evidence does not apply with full force at motion to suppress hearings. As to the determination of probable cause or the justification of government action, out-of-court statements are admissible.
NOTE
Subsection (a). This subsection summarizes the current practice in Massachusetts courts. The rules of evidence stand guard to ensure that only relevant, reliable, noninflammatory considerations may shape fact finding. Without these rules, there would be nothing to prevent trials from being resolved on whim, personal affections, or prejudice. Adoption of Sherry, 435 Mass. 331, 338, 757 N.E.2d 1097, 1103 (2001). In addition to trials, therefore, the law of evidence applies at hearings on motions. See Thorell v. ADAP, Inc., 58 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340341, 789 N.E.2d 1086, 10911092 (2003).
Subsection (b). Privileges are covered in Article V, Privileges and Disqualifications.
Subsection (c)(1). See Note to Section 104(a), Preliminary Questions: Determinations Made by the Court.
Subsection (c)(2). This subsection is derived from Commonwealth v. Gibson, 368 Mass. 518, 522525, 333 N.E.2d 400, 404405 (1975), and Mass. R. Crim. P. 4(c). See Reporters Notes to Mass. R. Crim. P. 4(c) (evidence which is not legally competent at trial is sufficient upon which to base an indictment).
Subsection (c)(3). Evidence bearing directly on probable cause, such as what a witness, a police officer, or a probation officer tells a court in connection with a request for an arrest warrant, a probation violation warrant, a warrant of apprehension, a search warrant, a capias, or a summons, or in support of a criminal complaint or as justification for a search and seizure, is not objectionable on grounds of hearsay in a judicial proceeding to determine probable cause. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 435 Mass. 558, 567, 760 N.E.2d 273, 280281 (2002); Commonwealth v. Weiss, 370 Mass. 416, 418, 348 N.E.2d 787, 789 (1976); Commonwealth v. Rosenthal, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 709 n.3, 755 N.E.2d 817, 819 n.3 (2001). While the traditional rules of evidence may not apply in these situations, the evidence must still be reliable and trustworthy. See Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 24, 3435, 933 N.E.2d 936, 945946 (2010); Brantley v. Hampden Div. of the Probate & Family Ct. Dep’t, 457 Mass. 172, 184185, 929 N.E.2d 272, 281282 (2010); Commonwealth v. Wilcox, 446 Mass. 61, 71, 841 N.E.2d 1240, 1250 (2006).
This subsection identifies the various miscellaneous proceedings to which the rules of evidence are not applicable, including the following:
209A Hearings. See Silvia v. Duarte, 421 Mass. 1007, 1008, 657 N.E.2d 1262, 1263 (1995); Frizado v. Frizado, 420 Mass. 592, 597–598, 651 N.E.2d 1206, 1210–1211 (1995).
Administrative Proceedings. See G. L. c. 30A, § 11(2); 452 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.11(5); Rate Setting Comm’n v. Baystate Med. Ctr., 422 Mass. 744, 752–755, 665 N.E.2d 647, 652–654 (1996); Goodridge v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec., 375 Mass. 434, 436 n.1, 377 N.E.2d 927, 929 n.1 (1978). See also Care & Protection of Rebecca, 419 Mass. 67, 83, 643 N.E.2d 26, 35 (1994) (a witness at such a proceeding is not permitted to express an opinion about the credibility of another witness).
Bail Proceedings. See Paquette v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 121, 133, 795 N.E.2d 521, 532 (2003) (bail revocation proceedings); Querubin v. Commonwealth, 440 Mass. 108, 118, 795 N.E.2d 534, 543 (2003) (G. L. c. 276, 57, proceedings); Snow v. Commonwealth, 404 Mass. 1007, 1007, 537 N.E.2d 578, 579 (1989).
Bar Discipline Proceedings. See Matter of Abbott, 437 Mass. 384, 393, 772 N.E.2d 543, 550 (2002).
Civil Motor Vehicle Infraction Hearings. See G. L. c. 90, 20 (traffic citation). Under the Uniform Rules on Civil Motor Vehicle Infractions, the formal rules of evidence do not apply. See Commonwealth v. Curtin, 386 Mass. 587, 588 n.3, 436 N.E.2d 1200, 1201 n.3 (1982). The same holds true for cases involving parking tickets under G. L. c. 90, 20C. See Lemaine v. City of Boston, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 1173, 1175, 540 N.E.2d 1338, 1339 (1989).
Issuance of Process (Warrant, Capias, Summons). See Commonwealth v. Weiss, 370 Mass. 416, 418, 348 N.E.2d 787, 789 (1976); Commonwealth v. Young, 349 Mass. 175, 179, 206 N.E.2d 694, 696 (1965); Commonwealth v. Lehan, 347 Mass. 197, 206, 196 N.E.2d 840, 846 (1964); Commonwealth v. Rosenthal, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 707, 709 n.3, 755 N.E.2d 817, 819 n.3 (2001).
Precomplaint Hearings. See G. L. c. 218, 35A. The formal rules of evidence do not apply at a hearing conducted pursuant to G. L. c. 218, 35A. Commonwealth v. Clerk-Magistrate of the W. Roxbury Div. of the Dist. Ct. Dep’t, 439 Mass. 352, 357358, 787 N.E.2d 1032, 1037 (2003); Commonwealth v. DiBennadetto, 436 Mass. 310, 314315, 764 N.E.2d 338, 342 (2002) (no right to cross-examine witness).
Pretrial Dangerousness Hearings. See G. L. c. 276, 58A(4); Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 458 Mass. 24, 3033, 933 N.E.2d 936, 943944 (2010); Mendonza v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 771, 785786, 673 N.E.2d 22, 3132 (1996).
Prison Disciplinary Hearings. See Murphy v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst., 396 Mass. 830, 834, 489 N.E.2d 661, 663 (1986).
Probation Violation Hearings. See Commonwealth v. Patton, 458 Mass. 119, 132, 934 N.E.2d 236, 248249 (2010); Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 117118, 551 N.E.2d 1193, 1198 (1990) (hearsay evidence must still bear substantial indicia of reliability and trustworthiness); Commonwealth v. Janovich, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 42, 47 n.6, 769 N.E.2d 286, 291 n.6 (2002). See also Rule 6(a) of the District Court Rules for Probation Violation Proceedings.
Restitution Hearings. Restitution may be ordered to compensate the victim of a crime for economic losses that are causally related to the offense. Courts should apply the law of evidence flexibly so that all reliable evidence is considered. The process should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial. Commonwealth v. Cassanova, 65 Mass. App. Ct. 750, 755756, 843 N.E.2d 699, 705 (2006), quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972). The requirements of G. L. c. 233, 79G, need not be fulfilled in a restitution proceeding for medical bills resulting from criminal conduct. Commonwealth v. Amaral, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 557, 561, 940 N.E.2d 1242, 1245 (2011).
Sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 414 Mass. 88, 92, 605 N.E.2d 827, 831 (1993) (a judge may consider many factors, including hearsay). See also G. L. c. 276, 85; Mass. R. Crim. P. 28(d); Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449, 461462, 879 N.E.2d 105, 116 (2008) (evidence of uncharged conduct is admissible and relevant to the character of the offender, but may not be used to increase the punishment).
Sexual Offender Registry Board Hearings. See G. L. c. 6, 178L(2); 803 Code Mass. Regs. 1.19(1).
Small Claims. See generally G. L. c. 218, 21, 22.
Summary Contempt Proceedings. See Mass. R. Crim. P. 43.
Subsection (d). This subsection is derived from United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172175 (1974), and Commonwealth v. Young, 349 Mass. 175, 179, 206 N.E.2d 694, 696 (1965). While out-of-court statements are admissible as to the determination of probable cause or the justification of government action, other evidence that would be incompetent under the rules of evidence is not admissible at suppression hearings or other proceedings in which probable cause is challenged. If a defendant testifies at a motion to suppress hearing and subsequently testifies at trial, his or her testimony from the motion to suppress hearing may be used to impeach his or her credibility at the later trial. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 425 Mass. 633, 637638, 682 N.E.2d 636, 640641 (1997).
Cross-Reference: Section 1112, Eyewitness Identification.
