Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After being billed by NEPT for medically necessary chiropractic services provided to the passenger of its insured, Liberty Mutual, claimed that the cost was unreasonably high and thus refused to pay the full amount invoiced. At trial, Liberty Mutual sought to introduce statistical evidence from a commercial database to show that NEPT's charges exceeded the 80th percentile of reported charges for the same procedures, pursuant to G.L. c. 233, 79B, which creates a limited exception to the hearsay rule for factual statements contained in commercial publications. The trial judge denied the motion, finding that the database was unreliable, based on a prior decision from the appellate court with respect to the database. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed. Based on the explicit language of section 79B, and the gatekeeper role of a trial judge, it is within a judge's discretion to consider the reliability of evidence offered pursuant to section 79B. View "N.E. Physical Therapy Plus, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant, who admitted shooting his wife, but claimed “heat of passion,” was convicted of murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting an argument based on failure to exclude a juror based on the juror's dual citizenship. The court properly admitted statements made by the victim, concerning marital trouble, as proof of the defendant's motive because he was made aware of the victim’s state of mind. Testimony by a friend that the victim had called her, "scared" and crying, and said that “she thought he was going to hit her" was properly admitted as an excited utterance. Admission of autopsy photographs was not unduly prejudicial. Admission of evidence concerning defendant's viewing of pornographic Web sites and of electronic communications describing sexual practices did not constitute impermissible character evidence of the defendant as an aggressor. Introduction of defendant’s firearms, with evidence of his training and certification as a firearms instructor was relevant to whether the murder was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. The prosecutor’s comments that the victim's disclosure of infidelity was not the sort of provocation that would cause a reasonable adult male to lose his capacity for self-restraint because there were other options, properly made the distinction between a killing committed with "heat of passion" and one committed with premeditation; the jury instruction on “heat of passion” was appropriate.View "Commonwealth v. Tassinari" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the premeditated murder of his mother. Six years later, he sought a new trial, alleging that he had not been competent to stand trial. Defendant submitted an affidavit from a forensic psychologist, indicating "long standing mental disease … schizoaffective disorder with prominent paranoid delusions.” A neuropsychologist administered tests and submitted an affidavit indicating that the defendant has demonstrated symptoms of a delusional disorder since childhood and that he functions intellectually in the low average to borderline retarded range. Trial counsel stated that he had not pursued a competency defense because the defendant denied committing the murder. The Commonwealth did not present evidence. During a hearing, the defendant shouted “racist bitch” at the judge, who had also been the trial judge. The judge ordered a competency evaluation. The court’s forensic psychologist reported that the defendant presented a "complicated diagnostic picture" and was likely incompetent in a complex proceeding such as an evidentiary hearing; she recommended medications, noting that defendant had previously benefited from psychopharmacological intervention. The defendant began taking prescribed medication. His condition improved. The court denied a new trial. The Massachusetts Supreme Court vacated, finding that the defendant made an adequate showing to warrant an evidentiary hearing. View "Commonwealth v. Chatman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of sexual offenses. Before Defendant completed his sentences, the Commonwealth filed a petition to commit him as a sexually dangerous person. A superior court judge granted Defendant's motion to have his counsel be present during interviews conducted by qualified examiners. One of the two examiners refused to conduct the interview with counsel in the room and submitted to the court her report based on her review of Defendant's records. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Commonwealth's petition, claiming that the examiner's report was not based on an "examination" pursuant to Mass. Gen. Law. ch. 123A, 13(a). The superior court granted the motion, concluding that dismissal was required. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, dismissal of the Commonwealth's petition was not warranted where one of the qualified examiners personally interviewed Defendant as part of his examination and filed with the court a report expressing his opinion that Defendant was a sexually dangerous person. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Felt" on Justia Law