Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not commit prejudicial evidentiary errors undermining Defendant’s right to present his defenses and depriving him of due process and fundamental fairness under the United States Constitution and Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; (2) an isolated misstatement by defense counsel during closing arguments did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (3) the judge improperly responded to a question posed by the jury, but the response did not prejudice Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Cassidy" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction. Appellant later filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to impeach a witness as to one of his statements and that he was deprived of counsel when his trial counsel’s law partner stood in during jury deliberations. The motion was denied without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in failing to impeach a witness as to one of his statements or in allowing her partner to stand in for her during jury deliberations; and (2) any error in permitting substitute counsel to stand in for trial counsel was not structural warranting a new trial absent a showing of prejudice. View "Commonwealth v. Valentin" on Justia Law

At a hearing before a Juvenile Court judge, a juvenile admitted to sufficient facts with respect to two counts of indecent assault and battery on a person fourteen or older. The juvenile subsequently filed a motion seeking relief from the obligation to register as a sex offender. A judge denied the juvenile’s motion for relief from registration, determining that the juvenile posed a risk of reoffense and would be required to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judge’s ultimate determination that the juvenile should not be relieved of the obligation to register as a sex offender did not constitute an abuse of her discretion. View "L.L. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law