Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged in a two-count complaint with distribution of a class B substance and a drug violation near a school or park. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his cellular telephone, which had been seized from him after his arrest and at the time of booking, arguing that the telephone was searched without probable cause or his consent in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The municipal court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that the limited search of Defendant's cellular telephone to examine the recent call list was a permissible search incident to Defendant's lawful arrest. View "Commonwealth v. Phifer " on Justia Law

This case concerned a limited search of the recent call list displayed on a cellular telephone that had been seized by the police in a warrantless search of Defendant incident to arrest. A judge in the municipal court allowed Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of this cellular telephone search, ruling that it had taken place at a location and time spatially and temporally separated from the arrest and therefore was not a valid search incident to arrest. The Supreme Court reversed the partial allowance of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding, as it did in Commonwealth v. Phifer, that in the particular circumstances presented, the very limited search of the cellular telephone was permissible. View "Commonwealth v. Berry" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition in the county court seeking an investigation into alleged misconduct of an assistant clerk of the court and a determination that he violated his obligation under the Code of Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts. A single justice ordered that the petition be dismissed on the ground that there is no right to bring a private action in court to obtain discipline of a clerk. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although a private individual may file a complaint with the Board of Bar Overseers or the Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts, there is no private right to operate the disciplinary process. View "Gorbatova v. First Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree based on deliberate premeditation. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The motion was denied. Defendant's direct appeal and the appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial were consolidated in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the denial of the motion for a new trial, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial, as trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to (1) object to the admission of gang-related evidence; (2) object to the testimony of a substitute medical examiner; (3) present evidence of Defendant's state of intoxication; and (4) request manslaughter instructions. View "Commonwealth v. Leng" on Justia Law