Commonwealth v. Olivo
337 N.E.2d 904 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
Facts
Defendants, natives of Puerto Rico residing in the Spanish-speaking north end of Springfield, spoke little English and could not read it. Their apartments were condemned as unsafe and unfit for habitation, with one also condemned for overcrowding. On August 14, 1974, a constable served them in hand with English-only notices to vacate, which stated reasons, administrative hearing rights, and penalties for noncompliance. Despite four subsequent visits from an inspector who discussed the orders in "broken English" and suggested alternative housing, the defendants remained in their apartments, unable to read or understand the written orders. Criminal complaints were issued against them on September 16, 1974, for failing to comply.
Procedural history
The cases came before the Supreme Judicial Court on a report from the Housing Court of the County of Hampden pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 30. After being arraigned and tried, the Housing Court judge denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, found them guilty, and assessed fines. The judge then stayed the fines and reported several important and doubtful questions of law to the Supreme Judicial Court for decision. The Supreme Judicial Court first affirmed that Housing Court judges may report questions under G. L. c. 278, § 30.
Issue
The court considered whether a Spanish-speaking person unable to read English can be convicted for failing to comply with an English-only housing order, and if such a conviction violates due process or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also addressed whether a notice warning of "penalties as provided by law" is sufficient for a criminal complaint.
Holding
The court held that such a person can be convicted if their failure to comply was reckless, and that English-only notice does not violate due process or equal protection. It further held that a warning of "penalties as provided by law" is sufficient notice for potential criminal sanctions.
Rule
For a failure to comply with a housing order to be criminal, it must be "wilful, intentional, reckless or repeated," with "reckless" defined as an intentional failure to take necessary care in disregard of probable harmful consequences. Due process is satisfied if actual notice would prompt a reasonable person to inquire, further inquiry would reveal necessary facts, and the disability does not prevent understanding the need for inquiry. English-only notice is constitutionally sufficient if it puts a reasonable person on notice that inquiry is required, and the inability to read English does not render one incapable of understanding the need for such inquiry. Equal protection is not violated by English-only notice because the burdened class (those unable to read English) is not suspect, and English is the official language. A warning of "penalties as provided by law" is sufficient to indicate potential criminal sanctions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.