## Facts

- Pamela Norcisa, a Provincetown resident, opened a retail clothing store in late 1973.
- A town agent told her she could not operate unless she paid a $200 license fee, posted a $500 bond, and obtained state and local transient vendor licenses under G.L. c. 101.
- Norcisa asserted she was not a “transient vendor” and intended to operate a regular, full-time retail business.
- A criminal complaint issued in the District Court charging her with violations of the Transient Vendor Statute, G.L. c. 101, §§ 6, 8; the complaint remained pending.
- Norcisa filed an equity/declaratory action in the Probate Court seeking a declaration that the statute did not apply to her and an injunction barring the town from enforcing it against her.
- The Probate Court entered a decree declaring her and her business outside the statute’s scope and permanently enjoining enforcement of G.L. c. 101, §§ 1–12 against her, effectively blocking the pending prosecution.
- The town’s board of selectmen and its agent appealed; the case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a court sitting in equity may enjoin enforcement of criminal law by restraining a pending criminal prosecution under these circumstances.
2. Whether declaratory relief determining the applicability of a criminal statute is proper while a prosecution under that statute is already pending.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the Probate Court decree.
- The court held the Probate Court lacked authority to enjoin the pending criminal prosecution because the case did not fit any narrow exception permitting equitable interference with criminal proceedings.
- The court held declaratory relief was improper because Norcisa had an adequate remedy at law in the criminal proceeding, and civil adjudication would improperly interfere with criminal process.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, equity will not enjoin the enforcement of criminal law or interfere with pending criminal prosecutions.
- Equitable interference with criminal proceedings is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, such as when enforcement would cause irreparable injury to property rights and there is no adequate remedy at law.
- When a criminal prosecution is pending, statutory applicability and related defenses should ordinarily be litigated in the criminal case, with review available through the ordinary appellate process.
- Declaratory judgment procedure should not be used to obtain collateral civil rulings that would disrupt or fragment ongoing criminal litigation where legal remedies in the criminal forum are adequate.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed a probate decree that declared the transient vendor statute inapplicable and enjoined its enforcement, holding that equity and declaratory judgment could not be used to halt or bypass a pending criminal prosecution absent extraordinary circumstances and inadequate legal remedies.


Norcisa v. Bd. of Selectmen of Provincetown, 368 Mass. 161 (1975)