Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant filed a document in the county court entitled "Defendant-Appellant's Interlocutory Appeal on Confrontation Clause With a Known Confidential Informant - Sixth Amendment" that was not accompanied by copies of any relevant papers from the criminal case pending against Defendant in the district court. A single justice of the Supreme Court denied relief without a hearing. The full Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to meet his most basic obligations as an appellant in the full court because, among other things, his brief failed to contain adequate appellate argument, and his record appendix contained numerous items that were not before the single justice. View "Azubuko v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

When Plaintiff became the subject of a federal indictment, the school department (Defendant) suspended her without pay from her position as a school adjustment counselor. Ultimately, the indictment was dismissed. Plaintiff sought reinstatement to her position, but Defendant terminated her employment. Plaintiff filed a grievance challenging the termination, and an arbitrator ordered that she be reinstated. Plaintiff then filed an action seeking confirmation of the arbitration award and back pay for the period of her suspension an the period between her termination and reinstatement. The superior court affirmed the arbitration award but granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant with respect to Plaintiff's back pay claims. The appeals court affirmed the denial of back pay with respect to the period between Plaintiff's termination and reinstatement but reversed with respect to the period of her suspension. The Supreme Court affirmed. Remanded. View "Serrazina v. Springfield Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for aggravated rape, indecent assault and battery, and other related offenses. The charges were based on five separate incidents involving five female victims. During the pretrial proceedings, the Commonwealth provided discovery to Defendant that included records related to medical treatment that some of the alleged victims received following the incidents. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for discovery that included the request for additional medical treatment or follow up visits any victim had pertaining to the indicted offenses. The superior court allowed the motion with respect to any follow up medical visits. The Commonwealth sought relief from that order, arguing that the order was improper because it required the Commonwealth to inquire of the alleged victims whether they sought or had follow-up treatment. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the judge was only allowing Defendant's request to the extent it required the Commonwealth to provide information in its possession. View "Commonwealth v. Castillo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation. Defendant appealed, arguing error in the admission of evidence, the prosecutor's closing argument, and the judge's instructions to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not palpably err in admitting a 911 recording of the victim stating three times, "I've been stabbed"; (2) the prosecutor did not improperly attempt to evoke sympathy from the jury by playing, during his closing argument, the 911 recording; and (3) the trial court did not prejudicially err in its instructions to the jury on self-defense. View "Commonwealth v. Harris" on Justia Law

This appeal involved a dispute over property rights in a beach parcel. Two families, Plaintiffs and Defendants, owned the property upland from the beach. In 2004, Plaintiffs filed an action in the land court to quiet title, claiming they owned a fractional interest in the beach or, in the alternative, enjoyed a prescriptive easement to use it and land leading to it. Defendants claimed that Plaintiffs had no interest in the beach as it was presently located because their title interest dated to an 1841 deed that created the parcel, and the beach no longer existed as it did in 1841. The land court judge granted summary judgment for Defendants on the title claim and determined that Plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing a prescriptive easement. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the judgment declaring that Plaintiffs did not have title interest in the beach as it currently existed since their interest was to a beach now submerged in the Atlantic Ocean; and (2) vacated the portion of the judgment relating to the prescriptive easement claim, as the judge's findings of fact were insufficient to permit appellate review of the judgment. Remanded. View "White v. Hartigan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff received housing assistance through the Massachusetts rental voucher program. Plaintiff rented an apartment in Chelsea and received her voucher through the Chelsea Housing Authority. In 2009, Plaintiff received notice from the Authority that it was terminating her voucher because she did not report changes in family composition and in the family's income within thirty days of the change as required by the conditions of her voucher. After a hearing, the Authority's grievance panel upheld the termination. The Board of Commissioners affirmed, as did the superior court and appeals court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) it was unlawful for the Authority to proceed to the grievance panel hearing without first offering Plaintiff the opportunity to engage in settlement negotiations; (2) the regulations Plaintiff was found to have violated were impermissibly vague; and (3) the grievance panel's factual findings were insufficient. Remanded. View "Rivas v. Chelsea Hous. Auth." on Justia Law

Plaintiff served as superintendent of schools in the town of North Brookfield until 2005. Plaintiff's employment contract provided that, on his retirement, Plaintiff would be reimbursed thereafter for a percentage of his health insurance premiums on an annual basis. In 2006, Plaintiff sent a request for reimbursement for a fixed percentage of the premium costs for his health insurance policy from the date of retirement. When the town refused to honor the request Plaintiff filed this action against the school committee and the town for breach of contract and specific performance of the contract. The superior court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Defendants argued that the obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for a percentage of his health insurance costs annually for his life signaled that Plaintiff's final employment contract was a lifetime agreement that exceeded six years in duration and therefore violated Mass. Gen. Laws 71, 41. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employment contract at issue in this case was valid and enforceable even though the reimbursement clause would presumptively exceed six years, as a contract that has expired may include enforceable obligations to be performed by the parties thereafter. View "O'Neill v. Sch. Comm. of N. Brookfield" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife sought a divorce, and probate and family court judge issued a judgment of divorce providing that Husband's alimony obligation would be reduced after the parties' youngest child graduated from high school and the marital home was placed on the market. Husband moved to alter or amend the divorce judgment, including the alimony provisions of the judgment. The judge issued an order on the motion, which did not include Husband's proposals concerning reduction in alimony. Husband appealed, arguing that the judge erred by not considering Husband's potential federal tax consequences pursuant to I.R.C. 71(c)(2). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the probate and family court judge's order to the extent that the judge did not consider the uncertainty of potentially unfair tax consequences, holding that, if presented with evidence of potential tax consequences, a judge should consider those consequences when creating or modifying alimony provisions in a divorce judgment. Remanded. View "L.J.S. v. J.E.S" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, assault and battery, and malicious destruction of property. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, holding that the evidence, which consisted primarily of medical records not explained by an expert witness, was insufficient to permit a rational jury to find that the victim suffered "serious bodily injury" within the meaning of the relevant statute. Remanded for resentencing on the remaining convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Scott" on Justia Law

While serving a period of probation for unrelated convictions, Defendant allegedly sold crack cocaine to a confidential police informant. Prior to his probation revocation hearing, Defendant moved for disclosure of the informant's identity. The district court denied the motion. The court then revoked Defendant's probation for violation of the terms of probation. At issue on appeal was whether a defendant facing probation revocation due to an alleged new criminal offense is entitled to disclosure of the identity of an informant who was a participant in the alleged offense, the only nongovernment witness to the offense, and the only percipient witness to the entire alleged transaction. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment, holding (1) under such circumstances, disclosure may be appropriate; and (2) the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion for disclosure on the ground that disclosure is never required in probation revocation proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Kelsey" on Justia Law