Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a workers' compensation claimant, brought suit against defendant regarding the company's conduct in referring his claim to the insurance fraud bureau (IFB), communicating with fraud investigators and prosecutors regarding his activity and claim, and using criminal processes to gain leverage in dealings with him. At issue was whether summary judgment in favor of defendant was properly denied. The court held that defendant enjoyed qualified immunity regarding its reporting of potentially fraudulent activity but that summary judgment was inappropriate because all of plaintiff's claims rely, at least in part, on conduct falling outside the scope of the immunity. The court also held that portions of plaintiff's claims could be barred by workers' compensation exclusivity under G.L.c. 152, but that not one of plaintiff's counts was barred entirely such that the Superior Court would be without subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the Superior Court denying summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This case stemmed from an encounter between police and several residents, and their guests, in front of a home, which erupted into an altercation and the subsequent arrest of four men on a number of charges. Defendant and his brother (defendants) were convicted of disturbing the peace and defendant was also convicted of two counts of assault and battery on a police officer. At issue was the trial court's erroneous exclusion of certain statements made by the police officers. The court held that the exclusion of the statements did not rise to the level of constitutional error and was properly reviewed under the prejudicial error standard. In the court's review, the error was prejudicial and therefore, the court reversed defendants' convictions.

Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping of an eleven-year-old boy when he drove up to the boy, who was walking along the street, and told him to get in his car. At issue was whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty because there was insufficient evidence to convict him and that his statement to police was improperly admitted in evidence. The court held that there was no evidence that defendant did anything but drive away after the boy refused to get into the vehicle and therefore, the court held that the trial judge erred in denying the motion for a required finding of not guilty. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and set aside the finding.

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and carrying a firearm without a license. Defendant appealed from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial, contending that, in several respects, he was denied constitutionally effective assistance of counsel. Defendant also challenged his firearm conviction under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and argued that the court should exercise its power under G.L.c. 278, section 33E, to reduce the verdict to a lesser degree of guilt. The court held that because defendant had not asserted or made any showing that he applied for a license to carry a firearm, defendant could not challenge this conviction. The court also held that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel as it related to evidence of defendant's gang affiliation, failure to introduce material exculpatory evidence, the prosecutor's closing argument, and jury instructions. The court also held that there was no basis of relief under G.L.c. 278, section 33E. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.