Commonwealth v. Quahir Q.: SJC Confirms Juvenile Judges Can Issue CWOFs on Firearm Charges
In Commonwealth v. Quahir Q., decided on November 20, 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court issued one of the most consequential juvenile-justice decisions in recent years. The Court held that a Juvenile Court judge may lawfully impose a continuance without a finding (CWOF) when a juvenile admits to sufficient facts on a charge of carrying a firearm without a license under G. L. c. 269, § 10(a).
The decision reinforces the long-standing principle that the Massachusetts juvenile justice system is rehabilitative, not punitive, and that judges retain broad discretion to craft dispositions that promote a young person’s growth rather than impose lifelong consequences.
Background of the Case
The case began in March 2022 at the Dearborn School in Roxbury, when administrators received information suggesting a student might have a weapon. A school search revealed a Glock 9mm pistol with six rounds in the juvenile’s fanny pack. Police were called, the juvenile was arrested, and a delinquency complaint issued.
Defense counsel explained that the juvenile had previously been assaulted and threatened while taking public transportation to school. Unusually for someone his age, he held a valid FID card, although he did not possess an LTC, which is required to carry a firearm outside the home.
After the incident, and with the help of his parents and lawyers, the juvenile re-enrolled in school, graduated, completed occupational training programs, and worked part-time.
He faced three charges:
Carrying a firearm without a license (§ 10(a));
Carrying a loaded firearm (§ 10(n));
Unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 10(h)(1)).
The juvenile offered a plea that included a CWOF on the firearm charges. The Commonwealth opposed and sought commitment to the Department of Youth Services until the juvenile turned nineteen. The Juvenile Court judge accepted the CWOF, dismissed the ammunition charge, and placed the juvenile under supervision.
The Commonwealth appealed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was straightforward:
Can a Juvenile Court judge impose a CWOF after an admission to sufficient facts on a § 10(a) firearm charge?
The Commonwealth said no.
The juvenile—and ultimately the SJC—said yes.
The challenge came down to how two statutes interact:
The juvenile justice statutes in G. L. c. 119, §§ 55B and 58; and
The adult firearm statute in G. L. c. 269, § 10(a).
Why the SJC Ruled CWOFs Are Permitted
1. The Juvenile Justice Statutes Explicitly Allow CWOFs Except for Certain Sex Offenses
Under G. L. c. 119, § 55B, a juvenile may request “any disposition” within the court’s jurisdiction, including a continuance without a finding, unless that option has been expressly prohibited by the Legislature.
The list of prohibited CWOF offenses consists exclusively of specific sex offenses. Firearm offenses are not on the list.
This omission was decisive: if the Legislature intended to forbid CWOFs for § 10(a), it would have said so.
2. The CWOF Prohibition in § 10(a)(6) Applies Only to Adult Prosecutions
Section 10(a)(6) states that prosecutions under that subsection cannot be continued without a finding. But the same provision sets mandatory penalties of state-prison or house-of-correction time.
Juveniles charged by delinquency complaint cannot be sentenced to adult facilities. Only youthful offenders can.
Because the subsection clearly speaks in terms of adult punishment, the Court concluded that the prohibition applies only to adult criminal prosecutions—not juvenile delinquency proceedings.
3. Required DYS Commitment Applies Only After Adjudication
Under G. L. c. 119, § 58, a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for a § 10(a) offense must be committed to DYS.
But a CWOF is not an adjudication. It is a mechanism specifically designed to avoid an adjudication.
Because the judge issued a CWOF instead of adjudicating the juvenile delinquent, the mandatory commitment provision simply never triggered.
4. The Purpose of the Juvenile System Supports CWOF Discretion
The SJC once again emphasized the guiding principle in G. L. c. 119, § 53:
Juveniles must be treated “not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance.”
Juvenile Court judges have “very broad discretion” to craft dispositions that promote rehabilitation.
Avoiding the “stigma and collateral consequences” of a delinquency adjudication is an essential judicial function.
Barring CWOFs for § 10(a) offenses would undermine these statutory directives. Permitting them aligns with the core mission of the juvenile justice system.
Key Takeaways
1. CWOFs are permitted for juveniles charged under § 10(a).
Judges retain full discretion to issue a CWOF when appropriate.
2. Firearm CWOF prohibitions in § 10(a)(6) apply to adults—not juveniles.
3. Mandatory DYS commitment applies only after an adjudication, which a CWOF prevents.
4. The decision strengthens the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system.
This ruling ensures that a single dangerous decision by a young person does not automatically eliminate their opportunities for education, employment, and stability.
Conclusion
The SJC’s decision in Commonwealth v. Quahir Q. is a major affirmation of judicial discretion and the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile system. Juvenile Court judges may continue to use CWOFs—when appropriate—to help young people avoid the stigma and lifelong consequences of a delinquency adjudication, even when the case involves serious firearm charges. This approach aligns with both legislative intent and the broader goals of juvenile justice in Massachusetts.