The case centers on Wayne LeBlanc, who faces multiple charges including assault with a dangerous weapon and witness intimidation after allegedly pointing a firearm at his spouse, firing a bullet into a street sign, and later punching a vehicle window during an argument. While held in pretrial detention, LeBlanc called his spouse approximately 140 times despite a no-contact order, with prosecutors alleging he used five of those calls to discourage her testimony.
The Commonwealth sought to admit the spouse's statements to police under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, arguing LeBlanc's jailhouse calls constituted witness tampering. However, District Court motion judge found after listening to all six recorded calls that the spouse "exercised her spousal privilege 'without influence from the [d]efendant,'" and that her refusal to testify was "'not the product of any undue influence, coercion or manipulation by the [d]efendant.'" The judge noted the spouse had made clear from the case's outset that she would not cooperate with prosecution and had initiated contact with LeBlanc herself.
The court criticized the Commonwealth's failure to provide sufficient evidence to support its extraordinary relief petition. As the justices wrote, "No less than other litigants, it is incumbent on the Commonwealth not merely to make allegations but to substantiate them in the record before the single justice.... We cannot fault the single justice for not finding an exceptional circumstance based on information he did not have before him."
The Commonwealth initially filed its motion in limine in September 2025, seeking to admit the spouse's statements after she exercised spousal privilege. The District Court motion judge denied both the initial motion and a subsequent reconsideration motion, finding no collusion between LeBlanc and his spouse. The Commonwealth then petitioned a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court under G.L. c. 211, ยง 3, for extraordinary relief, but crucially failed to submit the call recordings that formed the basis of the lower court's ruling.
The Commonwealth argued the motion judge's ruling would effectively terminate the prosecution and reward LeBlanc's misconduct. However, the court rejected this reasoning, noting the state's petition "did not describe how the motion judge's order would preclude the prosecution of the various charges against the defendant from proceeding, and it did not explain the extent or weight of the evidence remaining after the motion judge's exclusion of the out-of-court statements." The court emphasized that other evidence existed, including LeBlanc's own statements to police.
The Supreme Judicial Court's decision reinforces the high bar for extraordinary relief under general superintendence powers. The court noted that "even if [the Commonwealth] has no other remedy," it "must still demonstrate to the single justice that its petition presents the type of exceptional matter that requires the court's extraordinary intervention." The justices found it "well within a single justice's discretion to decline to review a routine evidentiary ruling, regardless of whether the decision was erroneous."
The ruling highlights procedural requirements for appellate review of evidentiary rulings in domestic violence cases. By failing to provide the actual call recordings to the single justice while simultaneously challenging the motion judge's factual findings based on those recordings, the Commonwealth undermined its own petition. As the court observed, the Commonwealth's "argument rests on a purported error of law" but provided "an insufficient record to address its arguments," leaving the single justice unable to conduct meaningful review.