Massachusetts high court hears argument on meaning of 'not less than 2 and a half years' in G. L. c. 269, §10(m)

Summary

At oral argument, the Commonwealth urged the Supreme Judicial Court to give effect to the phrase 'not less than 2 and a half years' in G. L. c. 269, §10(m), while defense lawyers argued alternative readings and urged deference to plea‑deal finality; the panel pressed both sides on precedent and statutory silence.

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard argument on whether the phrase “not less than 2 and a half years” in G. L. c. 269, §10(m) must be read as a mandatory minimum or can be harmonized with other provisions that appear to permit shorter service.

Special Assistant District Attorney Chi Chi Lee, arguing for the Commonwealth, told the court: “This is a case about applying the plain meaning and a rule against superfluity to section 10 m to reflect the legislative intent.” Lee urged the justices to give the phrase meaning rather than rendering it meaningless under precedent the Commonwealth describes as erroneous.

The Commonwealth framed the dispute as one of statutory construction and precedent. Counsel argued that treating the 2.5‑year clause as the effective mandatory minimum is necessary to avoid making statutory language superfluous and relied on comparative statutory drafting across related…

Massachusetts high court hears argument on meaning of 'not less than 2 and a half years' in G. L. c. 269, §10(m)

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading