Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the early morning of March 24, 2015, Kenneth Lopez was shot and killed on Dwight Street in Springfield. His body was discovered the next morning. Lee Manuel Rios was arrested nine days later and charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and several firearms offenses. In February 2018, a jury convicted Rios of first-degree murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty and deliberate premeditation, sentencing him to life in prison without parole.Rios appealed his convictions, the denial of his motion to suppress mail intercepted by the jail, the denial of his posttrial motion for a new trial, and sought relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. He also sought a new trial on several firearms convictions in light of the decision in Commonwealth v. Guardado.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court found no reason to exercise its extraordinary power to grant a new trial or reduce Rios's conviction of first-degree murder. The court affirmed the murder conviction and other firearm offenses, as well as the orders denying his pretrial motion to suppress and posttrial motion for a new trial. However, the court vacated Rios's convictions under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a) and (h) and remanded those charges for a new trial, in accordance with the decision in Guardado II. View "Commonwealth v. Rios" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape of a child and indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen years old. The charges stemmed from the defendant's rape and sexual assault of his twelve-year-old granddaughter. The victim testified that the defendant assaulted her in his bedroom while her mother was out of the house. The victim reported the assault to a Department of Children and Families (DCF) social worker, which led to police involvement and the collection of DNA evidence from the bedding.The Superior Court admitted the DNA evidence, which confirmed the presence of the defendant's DNA but excluded the victim's DNA. The defense argued that the DNA evidence contradicted the victim's testimony and suggested that the victim fabricated the assault after seeing the defendant with his girlfriend. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, and the defendant appealed.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The defendant argued that his confrontation rights were violated because a reviewing analyst testified about the findings of a nontestifying analyst concerning DNA testing. The court agreed that the testimony was admitted in error but concluded that the error did not result in a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court also addressed the defendant's argument that the judge abused his discretion in admitting evidence of a prior sexual assault by the defendant on the victim. The court found that the judge acted within his discretion in admitting the prior bad act evidence.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments, holding that the admission of the DNA evidence and the prior bad act evidence did not warrant a new trial. The court concluded that the errors did not significantly impact the trial's outcome, given the overall strength of the victim's testimony and the limited nature of the prior bad act evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Nascimento-Depina" on Justia Law

The defendant crashed his vehicle into a State police cruiser parked in the breakdown lane on Interstate Route 90, resulting in the death of a trooper. The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, misdemeanor motor vehicle homicide by means of negligent or reckless operation, operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger the lives or safety of the public, and operating an uninsured motor vehicle. The defendant appealed, arguing that the Legislature did not authorize multiple punishments for involuntary manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, and operating to endanger arising from the same act. He also contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his involuntary manslaughter conviction and that his trial counsel was ineffective.The Superior Court judge denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. The Appeals Court reversed the convictions of motor vehicle homicide and operating to endanger, holding that the Legislature did not intend to impose multiple punishments based on the same act for those offenses where a defendant is also convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The Appeals Court upheld the involuntary manslaughter conviction and rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the insufficiency of evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review. The court reaffirmed its holding in Commonwealth v. Jones, which precludes multiple punishments for involuntary manslaughter, motor vehicle homicide, and operating to endanger based on the same act. The court affirmed the defendant's convictions of involuntary manslaughter and operating an uninsured motor vehicle but reversed the convictions of motor vehicle homicide and operating to endanger. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Commonwealth v. Njuguna" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The incident occurred on February 6, 2006, when the victim was shot multiple times in an apartment building. Several witnesses, including Corrin Cripps, Jeanette Martinez, and Michael Gomes, identified the defendant as the shooter. Cripps and Martinez were using cocaine at the time of the incident, and Gomes initially failed to identify the defendant in a photographic array. The defendant was later found in Puerto Rico, where he provided an alias to the police.The defendant's conviction was previously affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, along with the denial of his first motion for a new trial. In November 2022, the defendant filed a second motion for a new trial, arguing that newly discovered evidence regarding the unreliability of eyewitness identifications entitled him to a new trial. This motion was denied by a Superior Court judge, and the defendant sought leave to appeal from a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, which was granted on the issue of the new eyewitness identification science.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of the second motion for a new trial. The court agreed that the new research on eyewitness identification was indeed newly discovered evidence. However, it concluded that this new evidence would not have been a real factor in the jury's deliberations. The court noted that the new research primarily addressed the unreliability of stranger identifications, which was only relevant to one of the three eyewitnesses. Additionally, the jury had already been made aware of the potential issues with the eyewitness identifications through cross-examination. The court also pointed out that there was other evidence of the defendant's guilt, including his intent and consciousness of guilt demonstrated by his actions after the shooting. Therefore, the court held that the absence of the new evidence did not cast real doubt on the justice of the conviction. View "Commonwealth v. Mercado" on Justia Law

In August 2021, five defendants responded to online advertisements offering sexual services for a fee. The advertisements, posted by undercover police officers, depicted an adult woman and listed various sexual services. Each defendant contacted the purported sex worker, selected services, agreed to the set price, and went to the specified location. Upon arrival, they were arrested by police officers.A Plymouth County grand jury indicted each defendant for trafficking of persons for sexual servitude under G. L. c. 265, § 50, and engaging in sexual conduct for a fee under G. L. c. 272, § 53A. The defendants moved to dismiss the sex trafficking charges, arguing that the facts did not support probable cause. A Superior Court judge allowed the motions, reasoning that the defendants did not attempt to traffic "another person" since the sex worker was an undercover officer. The Commonwealth appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the evidence did not constitute trafficking of a person for sexual servitude. The Commonwealth then sought further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal of the sex trafficking indictments. The court held that the defendants' conduct of responding to advertisements, agreeing to terms, and going to the location did not constitute "trafficking of persons for sexual servitude" under G. L. c. 265, § 50. The court concluded that the statute did not apply to purchasers who respond to offers from independent sex workers and accept the terms set by the sex worker. The court emphasized that the statute targets those involved in the operation of sex trafficking schemes, not the subset of purchasers targeted by the sex for a fee statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining indictments. View "Commonwealth v. Garafalo" on Justia Law

Two detectives from the Lowell police department, while investigating a home invasion in Lowell, Massachusetts, crossed into Nashua, New Hampshire, to speak with the defendant. During the conversation, one detective suspected the defendant was deleting data from his cell phone and seized it without a warrant. The detectives then brought the phone back to Massachusetts and obtained a warrant to search it.In the Superior Court, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the cell phone, arguing that the seizure was unlawful. The motion judge allowed the motion, finding that the Lowell detectives had no authority to seize the phone in New Hampshire. The Commonwealth sought an interlocutory appeal, which was allowed by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk. The case was then transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that the Lowell detective did not have extraterritorial authority to seize the cell phone in New Hampshire. The court found that no statutory or common law authority permitted the warrantless seizure in these circumstances. The court also rejected the Commonwealth's argument that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered, as this theory was not sufficiently supported by the record. The court held that suppression of the evidence was the appropriate remedy to deter police misconduct and preserve judicial integrity. The order allowing the motion to suppress was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. McCarthy" on Justia Law

A child was born on May 30, 2017, to unmarried parents. The mother, A.D., believed Q.T. was the father, and he signed a Voluntary Acknowledgment of Parentage (VAP) on June 1, 2017. However, a DNA test on July 6, 2017, revealed Q.T. was not the biological father. Despite this, the VAP was not rescinded within the statutory period, and Q.T. ceased contact with the child. Years later, the mother identified K.S. as the potential biological father through a DNA testing platform and filed multiple complaints to establish K.S. as the legal father.The Middlesex Division of the Probate and Family Court initially dismissed the mother’s complaints due to procedural issues and the existing VAP. However, after consolidating the sixth and seventh complaints, the court ordered genetic marker testing, which confirmed K.S. as the biological father. The court then rescinded the VAP, declared K.S. the legal father, and ordered changes to the child’s birth certificate.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the Probate and Family Court judge lacked the authority to override the statutory deadlines for rescinding a VAP. The statute of repose under G. L. c. 209C, § 11(a), establishes strict time limits for challenging a VAP, which had long expired in this case. The court emphasized the legislative intent to provide finality in parentage determinations for the stability and security of the child. Consequently, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the lower court’s judgments and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "A.D. v. K.S." on Justia Law

A child was removed from her mother's care by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) shortly after birth due to neglect. The child spent most of her life in foster care. In February 2019, a Juvenile Court judge awarded custody to the child's father, a New Hampshire resident, despite the absence of an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) report. The child went missing after moving to New Hampshire with her father and is presumed dead. The father was later convicted of her murder.The journalist sought access to audio recordings of the February 2019 hearings where custody was awarded to the father. The Juvenile Court judge denied the request, applying the Uniform Rules on Impoundment Procedure (URIP). The journalist filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. The case was transferred to the Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and determined that the good cause standard under Rule 7(b) of the URIP was the appropriate test for evaluating the journalist's request. The court found that the privacy interests of the parties involved were minimal, given the extensive public disclosure of the case details. The court also recognized the significant public interest in understanding the child welfare system and the circumstances leading to the child's death.The court concluded that the journalist demonstrated good cause for the release of the February 2019 hearing recordings for use in a documentary, subject to specific redactions and conditions. The order denying the motion for access was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Juvenile Court for the release of the recordings with the specified limitations. View "Care and Protection of Adele" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of deliberately premeditated murder in the first degree for the shooting death of Jesus Flores at the entrance of a Springfield nightclub. The primary issue at trial was the identification of the defendant as the shooter, which the Commonwealth supported with surveillance video footage. The defendant argued that the poor quality of the footage made it impossible to prove identification beyond a reasonable doubt.A Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. However, the trial judge later reduced the verdict to murder in the second degree, citing insufficient evidence of deliberate premeditation and lethal intent. The defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, the compilation video was improperly admitted, and a police officer's testimony about a hearsay statement from the victim was wrongly allowed. The Commonwealth also appealed the reduction of the verdict.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the conviction of murder in the first degree. The court found that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to identify the defendant as the shooter and that the compilation video was properly admitted. The court also ruled that the victim's statement was admissible to rebut the defendant's challenge to the adequacy of the police investigation. Finally, the court reversed the trial judge's reduction of the verdict, reinstating the jury's original verdict of murder in the first degree, and remanded the case for resentencing. The court held that the weight of the evidence supported the jury's finding of deliberate premeditation and intent to kill. View "Commonwealth v. Gomez" on Justia Law

The defendant, Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP (CHA), agreed to design a new athletic field for the plaintiff, Trustees of Boston University (university). The contract included an express indemnification provision, which required CHA to indemnify the university for any expenses resulting from CHA's negligent design. A defect in CHA's design caused the university to incur expenses to fix the field. The university demanded indemnification from CHA, which CHA refused. More than six years after the field opened, the university sued CHA for breach of the indemnification provision.The Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of CHA, relying on the tort statute of repose, which bars tort actions for damages arising from design defects in real property improvements six years after the improvement's opening. The judge concluded that the university's claim was barred by this statute. The university appealed the decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the tort statute of repose does not apply to the university's contract claim for indemnification. The court emphasized that the claim was based on an express contractual provision, not a tort duty imposed by law. The court distinguished between claims for breach of an implied warranty, which are barred by the statute of repose, and claims for breach of an express warranty or indemnification provision, which are not. The court reversed the Superior Court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trustees of Boston University v. Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP" on Justia Law