Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Commonwealth moved for judicial approval of a grand jury subpoena compelling a law firm representing John Doe, who was the target of a grand jury investigation, to produce a telephone Doe transferred to the law firm in connection with its provision of legal services to him. The Commonwealth asserted that the telephone was transferred from Doe to the law firm to obtain legal advice and that it contained evidence, particularly in its record of text messages, of the crime under investigation by the grand jury. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court approved the issuance of the subpoena on the basis that the Commonwealth had, through an ex parte proceeding, established probable cause sufficient to justify a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the attorney-client privilege protected Doe against compelled production of the telephone by the law firm and that the privilege may not be set aside based on a showing of probable cause. View "In re a Grand Jury Investigation" on Justia Law

After a retrial before a jury, Defendant was convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon and other offenses. Before trial, two eyewitnesses described Defendant’s gender and race and the color of his clothing. However, neither eyewitness identified Defendant at the live lineup. The trial judge refused to give a modified identification instruction providing that the jury may consider that the eyewitnesses had the opportunity to view Defendant but did not identify him. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to give an identification instruction where there was no positive eyewitness identification and no other eyewitness testimony that significantly incriminated Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Johnson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of mayhem and breaking and entering. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress certain pretrial identifications. The trial judge denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the judge erred by refusing to give Defendant’s proffered instruction regarding eyewitness identification that would have instructed the jury on various scientific principles regarding eyewitness identification and human memory. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions but included in this opinion a provisional jury instruction regarding eyewitness identification evidence to be used before a model instruction would be set forth, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion by declining to instruct the jury about the scientific principles where Defendant offered no expert testimony, scholarly articles, or treatises that established that the principles were so generally accepted that a jury instruction stating those principles would be appropriate; but (2) there are principles regarding eyewitness identification that are so generally accepted that juries in the future should be instructed regarding these principles. View "Commonwealth v. Gomes" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was found guilty of larceny from a person sixty years of age or older. The victim in this case was an eighty-six-year-old nursing home resident who sold her property to Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the “specific intent to steal” element of the crime of larceny by theft requires proof that the defendant knew that the victim lacked capacity to give such consent; and (2) because the judge in this case may have applied an erroneous legal standard for proof of the specific intent to steal, the case must be remanded for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. St. Hilaire" on Justia Law