In a recent decision, Commonwealth v. Lewis, SJC-13677, the Supreme Judicial Court interpreted the Legislature’s intent in G.L. c. 276, § 58 by examining the meaning of the word “release” in the statute’s bail-revocation provision. The Court held that the statute does not permit the revocation of bail for a defendant who is already being held in custody on that charge. The issue arose in a case where the defendant, detained awaiting trial, was charged with and arraigned on new offenses allegedly committed while in custody. The question was whether this new offense could trigger a revocation of his bail on the earlier charge.

Writing for the Court, Justice Wolohojian applied the plain meaning of the statute, which provides that a bail revocation hearing “shall be held upon the person’s first appearance before the court before which the person is charged with committing an offense while on release pending adjudication of a prior charge.” The Court concluded that a defendant must actually be “on release” for § 58 to apply. This means free, unrestrained, and out in the world, not in jail. Accordingly, a person already held in custody on that charge is not eligible for bail revocation under the statute.

Also implicated, though not discussed, is the question of whether a defendant can be subject to bail conditions (and penalties for violating them) if they are already held on the case. Bail conditions, like a no-contact provision or a drug testing requirement, are technically called “conditions of release.” The holding in Lewis appears to apply here as well, requiring that the person be at liberty before they can have their bail revoked for a violation of release conditions.