SJC: Drug law does not require knowledge of park boundaries.

Byline: Kris Olson

A defendant can be convicted of a drug crime under the state's "park zone statute" without knowledge of park boundaries, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Oct. 21.

The court also concluded that whether a particular location is a "park" pursuant to the statute is a matter for the fact finder to determine.

InCommonwealth v. Matta, the defendant, Raul Matta, fled when a police officer attempted to question him while investigating a tip regarding a firearm in a vehicle.

After pursuing and arresting Matta, police recovered a plastic bag containing heroin that Matta had thrown onto a pedestrian walkway, and several more small bags of heroin were found at Matta's feet.

Matta was charged with and subsequently found guilty of possession of heroin with intent to distribute (second offense) in violation of G.L.c. 94C, 32(b); and with committing the crime within 100 feet of a public park in violation of G.L.c. 94C, 32J, the "park zone statute."

Matta argued to the SJC that 32J includes a scienter element as it pertains to the park zone provision and that the state failed to prove he knowingly violated the provision.

But Justice Kimberly S. Budd wrote that, after review, "we conclude that with respect to the 'public park or playground' provision of 32J, the intent to commit the underlying drug crime is sufficient, without additional proof of knowledge of park or playground boundaries required."

Not long after the Legislature had enacted the original version of 32J in 1989, the SJC had confirmed that it "comprises, in part, an aspect of strict liability," and that as such it did not violate the due process clause, Budd noted.

In 1993, when the Legislature amended 32J to add drug offenses within park zones, the amendment did not alter the last sentence of the statute, which explicitly...