Commonwealth v. Springfield Terminal Railway Company (and seven companion cases), July 8, 2010
77 Mass. App. Ct. 225
MA Oil and Hazardous Material Prevention Act, Execution of Sentence, Stay of Proceedings
The defendants are four corporations that operate railways in MA and other states. Each defendant was found guilty of two counts of violating the reporting procedure mandated by the MA Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act. The charges arose out of the defendants' failure to notify the Department of Environmental Protection about a diesel fuel leak from a parked locomotive. The judge sentenced each defendant on the first count to pay a fine of $100,000, plus a $25,000 surfine, payable within thirty days, and on the second count each defendant was placed on probation for three years with special conditions.
The defendants appealed their convictions and filed a motion for a stay of execution of their sentences. The motion for a stay of execution was denied twice, in a April 2 memorandum of decision and a April 8 single justice order. On April 15, 2009, the defendants filed in the Appeals Court a joint notice of appeal from the April 8 single justice order. On April 30, 2009, the defendants together deposited $500,000 into a joint interest-bearing escrow account in the names of each corporate defendant and the Attorney General, in accordance with the April 2 memorandum of decision.
When deciding whether to stay the execution of a sentence pending an appeal, a judge should consider (1) whether the defendant raises a novel issue on appeal, one with a reasonable possibility of success, and (2) whether the defendant presents a risk of flight or danger to the community.
The defendants claim that they are entitled to a stay of the probation conditions pending appeal because they do not pose a security risk, and because the issues raised in their direct appeal are novel, and, therefore, would have a reasonable possibility of success at the appellate level.
Given the magnitude of the spill, the lack of procedures in place, and the defendants' actions, the trial judge concluded that the defendants posed a tremendous danger to the community, and to the public. Though the defendants presented novel issues of law, the judge concluded that the defendants failed to establish a reasonable possibility of success at the appellate level.
The Appeals Court will not reverse an order of a single justice in the absence of an abuse of discretion or clear error of law. Commonwealth v. Senior, 429 Mass. 1021 (1999). Here, the defendants failed to demonstrate the single justice abused her discretion in denying the motion for security reasons. Because the defendants here are corporations and imprisonment is inapplicable, the defendants were not harmed by the denial of a stay of probation. The Appeals Court also found that the trial judge's order of payment of an amount of money into an escrow account equivalent to the amount of the fines preserved the objective of Rule 31(b) while at the same time addressing the concern that some of the defendant corporate entitles may no longer exist at the end of the appeal period. The Appeals Court affirmed the order of the single justice.
- Prepared by AYK
