## Facts

- Shawn A. McGonagle was convicted by a jury in the Boston Municipal Court (District Court) of assault and battery under G.L. c. 265, § 13A.
- At sentencing, the Commonwealth requested the maximum 2½-year house of correction term, to run from and after an unrelated sentence; the defense sought nine months concurrent.
- Pursuant to G.L. c. 258B, § 3(p), the victim delivered an oral victim-impact statement describing the crime’s effects and recommending a sentence consistent with the prosecutor’s request.
- The judge imposed an 18-month concurrent sentence, below both the prosecutor’s and the victim’s recommendations, and stated he gave great weight to the victim’s injuries and the defendant’s criminal record.
- McGonagle appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the statutory authorization for victims to recommend a sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth Amendment and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights art. 26 bar a sentencing judge in a noncapital case from considering a victim-impact statement that includes a recommended sentence.
2. Whether G.L. c. 258B, § 3(p)’s authorization for victim sentencing recommendations violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights art. 12.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that the Eighth Amendment/art. 26 restrictions on victim opinions about sentencing developed in capital jury-sentencing cases do not apply to noncapital sentencing by a judge.
- The court held that allowing a victim to recommend a sentence under G.L. c. 258B, § 3(p) satisfies due process.
- The court emphasized that sentencing authority remains exclusively with the judge and that a victim’s recommendation is information the judge may consider but need not follow.

## Legal Principles

- Eighth Amendment limits on victim sentencing-opinion evidence in capital jury proceedings do not extend to noncapital, judge-imposed sentencing.
- In noncapital cases, a judge may consider victim-impact information, including a victim’s recommended sentence, as part of individualized sentencing.
- Due process is not violated where a victim-rights statute rationally permits victim participation at sentencing and the judge retains independent sentencing discretion.
- A prosecutor represents the Commonwealth’s interests, not the victim’s personal interests; the Legislature may provide victims an independent channel to be heard at sentencing.
- A statute that does not alter statutory maximums or mandate any punishment, but permits additional relevant information at sentencing, is not cruel or unusual punishment.

## Conclusion

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld G.L. c. 258B, § 3(p) and ruled that, in noncapital cases, a sentencing judge may constitutionally consider a victim-impact statement that includes a sentencing recommendation because the judge remains the sole sentencer and the statute comports with Eighth Amendment, art. 26, and due process requirements.


Commonwealth v. McGonagle, 478 Mass. 675 (Mass. 2018)