A significant number of private attorneys who serve as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in two Massachusetts counties stopped accepting new cases to protest legislatively set compensation rates. This work stoppage resulted in hundreds of indigent defendants, including many in pretrial detention, being left without legal representation. The Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS), the entity charged with administering indigent defense, reported that the public defender division was at capacity and unable to fill the gap. CPCS petitioned for emergency relief, seeking both implementation of a protocol to address unrepresented defendants and a court-ordered increase in compensation rates for bar advocates.The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, through a single justice, conducted an evidentiary hearing, found a systemic violation of indigent defendants’ constitutional rights to counsel, and implemented the protocol requiring prompt hearings and potential release or dismissal when counsel could not be appointed in a timely manner. The single justice, however, denied the request to judicially increase rates, deferring to the Legislature. After a trial court judge unilaterally ordered higher rates for certain attorneys, the question of judicial authority to set such rates was reserved and reported to the full Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that neither it nor any other court has authority to order increased compensation rates for bar advocates above those set by the Legislature, absent extraordinary circumstances where the judiciary’s constitutional functioning is impaired and all other remedies are exhausted. The court found that the existing statutory rates, recent legislative rate increases, and incentive programs ensured a constitutionally adequate system and that judicially ordered rate increases would violate the separation of powers. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Middlesex and Suffolk County District Courts" on Justia Law

An assisted living residence operated by the defendant charged new residents a one-time “community fee” upon admission. The agreement stated that this fee was intended to cover upfront staff administrative costs, the resident’s initial service coordination plan, move-in assistance, and to establish a reserve for building improvements. The plaintiff, acting as executor of a former resident’s estate and representing a class, alleged that this community fee violated the Massachusetts security deposit statute, which limits the types of upfront fees a landlord may charge tenants. The complaint further claimed that charging the fee was an unfair and deceptive practice under state consumer protection law.The Superior Court initially dismissed the case, finding that the security deposit statute did not apply to assisted living residences, which are governed by their own regulatory scheme. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts previously held in a related decision that the statute does apply to such residences when acting as landlords, but does not prohibit upfront fees for services unique to assisted living facilities. The court remanded the case for further factual development to determine whether the community fee corresponded to such services. After discovery and class certification, both parties moved for summary judgment. The Superior Court judge ruled for the plaintiffs, finding that the community fees were not used solely for allowable services because they were deposited into a general account used for various expenses, including non-allowable capital improvements.On direct appellate review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed. The court held that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because uncontradicted evidence showed that the community fees corresponded to costs for assisted living-specific intake services that exceeded the amount of the fees collected. The court emphasized that the statute does not require the fees to be segregated or tracked dollar-for-dollar, and ordered judgment in favor of the defendant. View "Ryan v. Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp." on Justia Law

The petitioner was convicted in 2005 of multiple non-murder offenses, including assault with intent to kill, for shooting at police officers when he was twenty years old. He received consecutive sentences totaling thirty-one to forty-three years in state prison, making him eligible for parole after thirty-one years, followed by probation. In 2024, the petitioner sought resentencing, arguing that his aggregate sentence exceeded the parole eligibility period now required for emerging adults convicted of first-degree murder, relying on recent case law recognizing heightened constitutional protections for such offenders.The Massachusetts Appeals Court previously affirmed the petitioner’s convictions. In the resentencing proceedings, the petitioner retained a forensic psychologist who conducted a personal examination and produced a report suggesting he was rehabilitated. After disclosing this report to the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth successfully moved in the Superior Court for a reciprocal, court-ordered psychiatric examination by its own expert, arguing that the petitioner had put his mental health at issue. The Superior Court’s order was based on the expectation that the petitioner would rely on expert testimony at the resentencing hearing. Before the examination was conducted, the petitioner sought relief from this order in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, but a single justice denied the petition.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed whether a judge may permit limited reciprocal discovery, such as a psychiatric evaluation, in a postconviction resentencing proceeding when the petitioner intends to rely on expert opinion derived from a personal examination. The court held that when a petitioner makes a prima facie showing for postconviction resentencing and elects to present psychological expert evidence based on a personal evaluation, the Commonwealth may be permitted a reciprocal examination to ensure fairness and accurate fact-finding, subject to appropriate protections. The judgment of the single justice was affirmed. View "Berry v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

A Commonwealth charter school, specifically Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, received several public records requests between January and November 2022. Believing it was not subject to the Massachusetts public records law, Mystic Valley declined to respond, even after the Supervisor of Public Records ordered compliance. The Attorney General subsequently directed the school to comply. After continued refusal, the Attorney General initiated a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that Mystic Valley is a custodian of public records under the law.A judge in the Superior Court considered the Attorney General’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The judge found that Mystic Valley is a governmental entity required to respond to public records requests under G. L. c. 66, § 10, and entered judgment for the Attorney General. Mystic Valley appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself for review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that Commonwealth charter schools are “authorities established by the general court to serve a public purpose” as described in G. L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth, and are therefore subject to the Massachusetts public records law. The court reasoned that charter schools, though possessing some operational independence and corporate features, perform essential public functions, receive public funding, and are subject to significant state oversight. The court rejected Mystic Valley’s arguments that it should be exempt due to its independence or because the Legislature has designated charter schools as governmental entities only in certain contexts. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, requiring Mystic Valley to comply with public records requests. View "Attorney General v. Mystic Valley Regional Charter School" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was charged in the District Court with armed robbery after allegedly entering a bank, presenting a note stating "I have a bomb," and leaving with money that included a dye pack. The allegations did not indicate the teller observed any weapon or bomb. After the defendant left the scene, he was arrested a few hours later, and money stained by the dye pack was recovered nearby. The defendant was subsequently arraigned on charges of armed robbery and making a bomb/hijack threat.At arraignment, the Commonwealth moved for pretrial detention under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 276, section 58A (§ 58A), arguing the charges constituted predicate offenses under the statute’s force clause, which permits pretrial detention for certain dangerous offenses. A District Court judge ordered the defendant held without bail, citing both charged offenses as predicate offenses. The defendant petitioned for review in Superior Court, where a judge again ordered him held, citing armed robbery as the qualifying predicate offense. The defendant then sought relief in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, and a single justice reserved and reported the case to the full court. While the appeal was pending, the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to prison, rendering the question of pretrial detention technically moot.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts exercised its discretion to address the issue due to its recurring nature. The court held that armed robbery, as defined in Massachusetts law, does not categorically require the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force necessary to qualify as a predicate offense under § 58A’s force clause. Because armed robbery can be accomplished through minimal physical force or even without the victim’s awareness of a weapon, it does not satisfy the statutory standard. The court ordered that the Superior Court’s pretrial detention order be vacated. View "Agostini v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Three men, including the defendant, devised a plan to rob an individual known for cultivating marijuana and possessing a large collection of firearms in his Marshfield home. The defendant became increasingly focused on the victim’s assets, repeatedly seeking information and a floor plan from an acquaintance. After recruiting his associates, the defendant and his coventurers executed the plan, entering the home in the early morning hours. A violent confrontation ensued, resulting in the victim being struck multiple times with a metal frying pan and sustaining fatal wounds, including a deep laceration to the arm that caused him to bleed to death. Forensic evidence, including the defendant’s DNA on items at the scene and on bloody footwear, as well as physical evidence linking the defendant to the aftermath and disposal of stolen firearms, tied him to the crime.After a first trial ended with a mistrial on the murder charge but convictions on related counts, a second jury in the Superior Court found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder. He was also convicted of burglary with assault on an occupant, unarmed robbery, and larceny of firearms. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, error in denying an involuntary manslaughter instruction, improper admission of hearsay, and duplicative convictions.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence amply supported the murder convictions, that the trial judge properly denied the request for an involuntary manslaughter instruction, and that while certain hearsay evidence was improperly admitted, the error was not prejudicial due to overwhelming independent evidence. The court also found no error in the conviction for burglary with assault. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Moscaritolo" on Justia Law

Three men, including the defendant, targeted the home of a man known to possess valuable quantities of marijuana and several firearms. After extensive planning, the group broke into the victim’s house at night. The planned theft quickly escalated into violence, resulting in the victim’s brutal beating and death. Physical evidence, such as DNA on clothing and items stained with the victim's blood, as well as cell phone data, implicated the defendant as a participant. Multiple firearms were stolen and later recovered. The defendant was arrested, indicted on multiple charges, and tried alongside evidence of coordinated action with his coventurers.A Plymouth County grand jury indicted the defendant on thirteen charges, including murder in the first degree under a felony-murder theory, aggravated burglary, unarmed robbery, larceny of firearms, and unlawful possession of firearms. In Superior Court, the defendant requested a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, which the judge denied, and moved for a mistrial based on claims of prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, which was also denied. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts. The defendant appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions, improper closing arguments, duplicative convictions, and the improper firearm convictions because the Commonwealth had not proven absence of licensure.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the trial judge properly declined to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter, as no reasonable view of the evidence supported that lesser charge. The Court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, determining the prosecutor’s statements did not prejudice the defendant. The Court vacated the unlawful firearm possession convictions, ordering a new trial on those charges because the Commonwealth failed to prove absence of licensure, in light of recent precedent. The Court also vacated the aggravated burglary conviction as duplicative of the felony-murder conviction, but affirmed all other convictions, including murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in 1989 of first-degree murder and larceny. No DNA evidence was presented at trial, as forensic DNA testing was not generally available at the time. Decades later, the defendant, represented by counsel, requested postconviction DNA testing of crime scene evidence, asserting factual innocence and arguing that another person may have been present with the victim after he left the scene. The Commonwealth did not formally oppose the motion, and an agreed-upon order for DNA testing was entered in June 2022. Shortly after, the defendant died before the testing could be completed due to delays in approval for accessing a DNA database and the transmission of some evidence.Following the defendant’s death, the Commonwealth moved in the Superior Court to vacate the testing order, arguing that the defendant’s death rendered the order void, as only living defendants could seek relief under the relevant statute, G. L. c. 278A. The defendant’s counsel opposed, emphasizing that the delay was not the defendant’s fault, that testing could serve public interests and potentially resolve other unsolved crimes, and that costs would not burden the Commonwealth. The judge denied the Commonwealth's motion to vacate.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that while only a living person may initiate a motion for postconviction DNA testing under G. L. c. 278A, the statute does not mandate that a validly issued testing order expires upon the movant’s death. The court concluded that the judge retained inherent authority to reconsider or vacate such an order in light of changed circumstances, including death. The court further held that, under the circumstances, the judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to vacate the order, and affirmed the denial of the Commonwealth’s motion. View "Commonwealth v. Tanner" on Justia Law

A pregnant woman working alone at a gasoline station was killed by ligature strangulation during her shift, resulting in her death and that of her viable, unborn child. The defendant, a man known to frequent the area and drive a distinctive black van, was observed at the station around the time of the killings and was later seen with a large amount of cash. He made incriminating statements to police and fellow detainees, and his DNA matched the major profile found on the ligature used in the crime, as well as DNA recovered from the victim’s fingernails.After his conviction in the Superior Court for two counts of first-degree murder and armed robbery, the defendant appealed and filed several motions for a new trial. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court previously affirmed his convictions and denied his first motion for a new trial, vacating only the armed robbery conviction as duplicative. While his direct appeal was pending, the defendant filed a second motion for a new trial in the Superior Court, asserting new grounds: the Commonwealth's failure to disclose an exculpatory segment of an audio recording, alleged anomalies in another police interview recording, and ineffective assistance of counsel for not interviewing or calling potential alibi witnesses.On appeal from the denial of his second motion for a new trial, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the undisclosed audio segment was not prejudicial since its content was substantially similar to evidence already disclosed, and the overwhelming evidence against the defendant precluded a finding of prejudice. The Court also concluded that the alleged recording anomalies were not newly discovered evidence and would not have affected the verdicts. Finally, it found no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice regarding counsel’s performance. The order denying the second motion for a new trial was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Bateman" on Justia Law

Late at night, a State Police trooper stopped a car in Taunton for having excessively tinted windows. The driver, who is the defendant, was accompanied by a passenger. During the stop, the officer noticed signs such as the passenger having two cell phones (one believed to be a “burner” phone), matching hand tattoos (suggesting possible gang affiliation), and an odor of unburnt marijuana. After failing several times to confirm the passenger’s identity, the trooper ordered the passenger out, frisked and detained him, then learned of an outstanding warrant for a minor offense. The officer then ordered the defendant out of the vehicle, frisked him, and, within two minutes, asked for consent to search the car. The defendant consented to a search of the front passenger area. The officer found cocaine, fentanyl, a firearm, and ammunition in the car.The Taunton Division of the District Court Department charged the defendant with firearm and drug offenses. The defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress the evidence was denied in part, with the judge finding the initial stop lawful, the consent to search voluntary, and that probable cause justified the search of the locked glove compartment. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on several charges. The defendant appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the exit order was unlawful because there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or safety concern, and the search consent was not sufficiently attenuated from the illegal seizure. The evidence obtained should have been suppressed, and its admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court ordered a judgment of not guilty on the ammunition charge due to insufficient evidence and vacated the remaining convictions, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Robinson" on Justia Law