The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the judgment of the superior court declaring that the construction of "regular compensation" set out in Public Employee Retirement Administration Comm'n v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 478 Mass. 832 (2018) (Vernava), is not limited to accidental disability retirement under Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch, 32, 7 and remanded for an order of dismissal of count two of the complaint, holding that no actual controversy was raised as to the second issue.At issue was whether the term "regular compensation" defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 1 excludes vacation or sick leave pay used to supplement workers' compensation payments. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the interpretation of "regular compensation" in Vernava applies consistently across uses of the term in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 5-7, thereby applying to superannuation, ordinary disability, and accidental disability retirement, and does so retroactively; and (2) no actual controversy was raised by the abstract issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies in hypothetical disputes over future Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission memoranda interpreting appellate opinions. View "Worcester Regional Retirement Board v. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for two counts of armed assault with intent to murder and other crimes, holding that denying superior court defendants the statutory right to a defendant-capped plea does not violate equal protection principles under either the Federal or State Constitutions.Defendant was charged, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced in the superior court. Defendant sought to withdraw his plea on the basis of a facial challenge to the procedural scheme laid out in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 18 and rule 12(c)(4)(A), arguing that denying superior court defendants the statutory right to a defendant-capped plea violates constitutional equal protection principles. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the procedural scheme of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 18 and Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 survives rational basis scrutiny. View "Commonwealth v. Roman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated and set aside the order of expungement in this case, holding that a judge ordering expungement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K must employ a two-part procedure.At issue was whether a judge ordering expungement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(a) may expunge a record solely because doing so is in the best interests of justice pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(b) and thus skip the conditions enumerated in section 100K(a). The judge in this case issued an order allowing Petitioner's petition for expungement. The Supreme Court vacated and set aside the order and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding (1) a judge ordering expungement must make findings based on clear and convincing evidence that the relevant criminal record was created because of one or more of the reasons listed in section 100K(a); and (2) after making such findings a judge may consider whether expungement would be in "the best interests of justice" under section 100K(b). View "In re Expungement" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court judge denying Juvenile's motion to continue his arraignment for a competency evaluation and denying Juvenile's petition for expungement pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(a)(5), holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.In two separate cases, Juvenile was charged with several offenses, including multiple counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Prior to arraignment, Juvenile filed a motion to continue so that he could undergo a competency evaluation and also filed a motion to dismiss. The judge denied the motions. Following an evaluation of Juvenile, the judge determined that Juvenile was incompetent to stand trial and was unlikely to become competent within the foreseeable future. The judge then dismissed all pending charges. Juvenile filed petition for expungement, which the juvenile court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Juvenile was not eligible for expungement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(a)(5), and therefore, the juvenile court judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Juvenile's petition. View "Commonwealth v. Carson C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and the denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that there was no prejudicial error or reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.In his motion for a new trial, Defendant asserted that he located a newly available witness who would provide impeachment evidence against one of the Commonwealth's key witnesses. The motion judge denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the judge erred in allowing the admission of certain testimony, and that the judge erroneously denied his request for a continuance and motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was charged with several offenses and was held on a finding of dangerousness. The Commonwealth later requested that Petitioner's detention remain in effect, arguing that the entire period of Petitioner's detention up to that point was excludable. The judge maintained Petitioner's detention. Petitioner then brought this petition. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the denial of relief. View "David v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying Defendant's petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the decision in Donavan v. Commonwealth, 426 Mass. 13 (1997), is still good law.Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant moved for a mistrial during closing arguments and again after the jury returned a guilty verdict on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The motion was denied but the judge granted Defendant's alternative motion for a new trial. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge on double jeopardy grounds, which the judge denied. Defendant then brought this petition for relief. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court declines to reconsider its holding in Donavan; and (2) Defendant did not present a double jeopardy claim warranting the extraordinary relief of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Perrier v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of the superior court in this dispute over a commercial lease, holding that contractual provisions limiting liability for violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 11 will not be enforced to protect defendants who willfully or knowingly engage in the unfair or deceptive conduct prohibited by the statute.The statute at issue makes unfair or deceptive acts or practices between businesses unlawful. When Defendants attempted to terminate a lease agreement between the parties, Plaintiff alleged a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 11. The judge found for Plaintiff on its claim and granted specific performance. After finding that Defendants' violations of the statute were willful or knowing the judge doubled the damages awarded. After reopening the trial, the judge awarded Plaintiff additional damages for willful or knowing violations. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendants' conduct met the standard for unfair or deceptive acts or practices under chapter 93A, 11; (2) the double damages award was warranted; and (3) a limitation of liability provision provides no protection in a chapter 93A, 11 action where the violation of the statute was done willfully or knowingly, as in this case. View "H1 Lincoln, Inc. v. South Washington Street, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of rape and one count of photographing an unsuspecting nude person, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions and that the trial court coerced a juror requesting to be dismissed into reaching an unanimous verdict. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support all of Defendant's convictions; and (2) the trial judge did not impermissibly coerce the juror into reaching a unanimous verdict. View "Commonwealth v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the doctrine of present execution does not permit an interlocutory appeal from a superior court judge's order denying a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement.Plaintiff filed this action asserting claims for summary process eviction and breach of contract regarding Defendant's lease of office space. The parties' counsel engaged in settlement negotiations via e-mail. Thereafter, Defendant moved to enforce what it asserted was a binding settlement agreement. After the motion judge denied the motion Defendant filed a petition for interlocutory review asserting that its interlocutory appeal was proper under the doctrine of present execution. A single justice presented questions for appellate review. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to an interlocutory appeal under the doctrine of present execution. View "CP 200 State, LLC v. CIEE, Inc." on Justia Law