Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted of Defendant of being an accessory before the fact to murder. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction because the evidence did not establish that he had done any act before the assault to counsel, hire, or otherwise procure the assault. The Commonwealth subsequently sought and the grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant with murder for his involvement in the killing. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that, because murder was a form, or a "species," of the lesser included offense of accessory before the fact to murder, a second prosecution was barred by double jeopardy. A judge denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the indictment that charged Defendant with murder in the first degree did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, given the erroneous jury instructions and the erroneous admitted evidence, prosecution of Defendant for murder in the first degree was not barred on grounds of double jeopardy. View "Marshall v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury conviction, Defendant was convicted of deliberately premeditated murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and declined to reduce the verdict or order a new trial, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) refusing to instruct the jury that they could consider evidence of voluntary intoxication on the question of Defendant's capacity to premeditate deliberately; (2) refusing to instruct the jury that they could return a verdict of voluntary manslaughter based on evidence of reasonable provocation or mutual combat; and (3) denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on his claim of a closure of the court room during jury selection, as Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing there was a general or even a partial closure of the court room. View "Commonwealth v. Lennon" on Justia Law

The trustee of a trust established by Carol Vollmer (settlor) commenced this action in the probate and family court seeking reformation of the trust to comply with certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. A judge in that court reported the case to the appeals court, and the Supreme Court granted the trustee's application for direct appellate review. The Court then concluded that the trust should be reformed as requested, holding that reformation was warranted on this record because the proposed reformations would conform to the settlor's intent and would not be adverse to any person's or entity's interests under the trust instrument. View "Rockland Trust Co. v. Attorney Gen." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and of possession of a firearm without a license. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Defendant's motions to suppress and affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding (1) the pretrial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's request for a continuance so that he could change counsel; (2) the trial court did not abuse his discretion in declining to allow Defendant to discharge his appointed counsel; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to suppress statements; (3) the trial judge did not err in his instructions to the jury; and (4) there was no basis on which to grant Defendant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws 278, 33E by reducing the murder verdict to a lesser degree of guilt or granting Defendant a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Delacruz" on Justia Law

This matter arose from an application filed by Plaintiff in the Somerville division of the district court department for a criminal complaint against a police officer. The first assistant clerk of the court denied the application and referred the matter to the district attorney. A district court denied Plaintiff's request for a hearing to review the action. Plaintiff then filed a petition seeking an order compelling the clerk-magistrate of the district court to conduct a show cause hearing and issue a criminal complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that Plaintiff had no right to a show cause hearing on such an application and no right to have a criminal complaint authorized. View "Aldrich v. Clerk-Magistrate" on Justia Law