When a man is on probation in two counties, what happens when he gets arrested again?

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a person charged with a crime while on probation in three different courts can only face punishment for a probation violation by one of them.

The issue came up in the case of a man who had pleaded guilty to assault and battery in Dorchester Municipal Court and to other offenses in Fall River and New Bedford.

When he was arrested on a new charge of robbing a woman of $630, a judge in Boston Municipal Court found ""no violation of probation" for the alleged theft, but extended his probation by failing to pay certain court fees, so extended his probation for nine months.

Probation officers in Fall River and New Bedford then sought to haul him into court for punishment for the theft charge.

But the state's highest court ruled a common-law doctrine known as collateral estoppel means that once one court has rendered a decision, other courts can't then take a crack for the same offense, because it would be unfair to a defendant to make him repeatedly fight the same exact case.

Following a hearing in the Boston Municipal Court, a judge determined, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the petitioner did not violate the terms of his probation with respect to the new offenses. The Commonwealth seeks to relitigate this same factual issue based on the same standard of proof and the same procedural rules at subsequent probation revocation proceedings on the new offenses that have been consolidated in the New Bedford District Court.

We conclude that principles of collateral estoppel bar the Commonwealth from doing so.