The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just issued a major decision that changes how judges can handle bail in armed robbery and dangerousness cases. In Agostini v. Commonwealth, decided March 10, 2026, the court ruled that a charge of armed robbery alone is not enough to hold someone in pretrial detention under the Commonwealth’s dangerousness statute, G.L. c. 276, § 58A.
What Is Pretrial Detention Under § 58A?
In Massachusetts, a judge can order someone held without bail before trial — not because of flight risk, but because they pose a danger to the community. This is called a dangerousness hearing. The law is serious: it allows the government to lock someone up, without a trial, based on a prediction of future harm.
But the law does not give judges unlimited power to do this. Before a dangerousness hearing can even happen, the person must be charged with a qualifying offense — called a predicate offense. If the charge does not qualify, § 58A does not apply, period.
How Courts Decide: The Categorical Approach
To figure out whether a charge qualifies, courts use what is called the categorical approach. This means a judge does not look at what actually happened in a specific case. Instead, the judge looks at the legal definition of the crime itself and asks: does every possible version of this offense require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person?
This matters because § 58A’s “force clause” sets the threshold. If the crime can be committed in a way that does not involve real physical force, it does not qualify — even if the specific conduct in a case was violent.
Why Armed Robbery Does Not Qualify
Armed robbery under G.L. c. 265, § 17 requires that a defendant be armed with a dangerous weapon and take property from another person using actual or constructive force. That sounds serious, and it is. But the SJC identified two problems with calling it a § 58A predicate.
- The level of force required is minimal. Under Massachusetts law, even a purse snatching — where a thief quickly grabs a bag from someone’s arm — can qualify as robbery. The victim does not need to resist. There does not need to be an injury. The court has long held that “the degree of force is immaterial” as long as the victim is aware that someone took their property. Because armed robbery can be committed with that minimal level of contact, it does not categorically require the serious physical force that § 58A demands.
- The weapon does not need to be used or even seen. The Commonwealth only has to prove that the defendant had a dangerous weapon during the robbery. The victim does not need to know about it. The weapon does not need to be displayed or threatened. Mere possession of a weapon — hidden from the victim — is enough to satisfy the armed element. Because § 58A requires the actual or threatened use of force, and armed robbery can be completed without any of that, the weapon element does not save the charge.
What This Means Practically
If you are charged only with armed robbery, the Commonwealth cannot hold you under § 58A. A judge cannot conduct a dangerousness hearing based on that charge alone.
That does not mean you walk out the door. A judge can still set high bail, impose strict conditions of release, or consider your criminal history and ties to the community. These are real tools, and they will be used.
More importantly, this ruling only protects you if armed robbery is the only qualifying charge. If you are also accused of offenses that do qualify — for example, if the alleged victim is a family or household member, which can trigger the abuse clause under § 58A — a dangerousness hearing is still on the table. Assault and battery on a family member, domestic-related offenses, and several other charges carry their own § 58A exposure.
Dangerousness Law Is Constantly Changing
This ruling is an example of how quickly this area of law evolves. Courts regularly revisit which charges qualify, what force actually means, and how far the government’s power to detain extends. What was true last year may not be true today.
If you are facing serious criminal charges in Massachusetts, you need a Boston criminal defense attorney who tracks these developments and knows how to use them. At the Law Office of Matthew W. Peterson, with a combined 15 years of experience practicing law, we represent people across Eastern Massachusetts in criminal cases at every stage — including fighting dangerousness hearings from the start. Contact us now to schedule a strategy session.
