Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves the defendant, who was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and related offenses after Boston police officers monitored his Snapchat account and observed him brandishing firearms in several videos. The police used an undercover Snapchat account to send a friend request to the defendant, who accepted it, allowing the officers to view his posts. The defendant was arrested twice, once in January 2018 and again in May 2018, each time after posting videos showing him with firearms.In the Superior Court, the defendant filed multiple discovery motions seeking information about the Boston Police Department's (BPD) use of undercover social media monitoring, arguing that it was relevant to an equal protection claim of discriminatory enforcement. The court granted these motions, ordering the Commonwealth to disclose various pieces of information, including the usernames and profile images used by undercover officers. The Commonwealth refused to comply, citing concerns about compromising ongoing investigations and endangering informants.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the Commonwealth did not properly assert a privilege to withhold the requested information, as it failed to demonstrate a legitimate need to protect ongoing investigations or the safety of informants. The court also affirmed the lower court's application of the equal protection standard from Commonwealth v. Long, which applies to claims of discriminatory law enforcement practices beyond traffic stops.The court concluded that the Superior Court judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the indictments with prejudice as a sanction for the Commonwealth's deliberate non-compliance with the discovery order. The dismissal was deemed appropriate because the Commonwealth's refusal to provide the requested discovery denied the defendant the opportunity to develop his equal protection claim, thus preventing a fair trial. View "Commonwealth v. Dilworth" on Justia Law

A juvenile was indicted as a youthful offender for unarmed carjacking, unarmed assault with intent to rob, and assault and battery on an elder. The charges stemmed from an incident where the juvenile, after escaping from a secure facility, attacked an elderly man and stole his car. The juvenile pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years in a house of correction followed by five years of probation.The Juvenile Court initially sentenced the juvenile to a house of correction, but after multiple probation violations, including missing appointments and being involved in new offenses, the court sentenced him to State prison. The juvenile appealed the sentence, arguing it was unlawful and that the judge did not adequately consider his well-being and the impact of recent literature on juvenile brain development.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile's sentence was lawful under G. L. c. 119, § 58, which allows for adult sentences, including State prison, for youthful offenders. The court determined that the Juvenile Court judge had appropriately considered the juvenile's criminal history, noncompliance with probation, and the need for public safety. The court also concluded that the judge did not need to make specific written findings on the impact of juvenile brain development literature.Additionally, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the Appellate Division of the Superior Court is authorized to review sentences to State prison imposed by the Juvenile Court on youthful offenders. This ensures that youthful offenders have the same procedural safeguards as adult criminal defendants. The court affirmed the juvenile's sentence and allowed for the appeal to the Appellate Division. View "Commonwealth v. Y." on Justia Law

The case revolves around Quasim Hastings, a prisoner convicted of second-degree murder in 2004 and eligible for parole consideration. Hastings, diagnosed with a mental disability, is entitled to a parole hearing that provides him with protections under the Massachusetts Constitution and Federal and State statutes prohibiting discrimination based on disability. Prior to a 2023 parole hearing, Hastings' counsel filed a motion for funds to retain a forensic psychologist and a social services advocate to assist with preparing a prerelease plan. While the motion for a forensic psychologist was approved, the request for a social services advocate was denied by a different Superior Court judge, who reasoned that the indigency statute limits his authority to approve funds to pending proceedings or appeals in any court.The judge's denial of the motion for funds was reported to the Appeals Court, and Hastings's application for direct appellate review was granted by the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Hastings's motion for funds to retain a social services advocate implicates his State constitutional right to reasonable disability accommodations. Therefore, the constitutionally mandated exception to the indigency statute applies, and the order denying Hastings's motion for funds was reversed. The court held that a judge has the discretion to allow a motion for funds to pay for expert assistance as reasonably necessary to safeguard the indigent prisoner's constitutional rights prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. View "Commonwealth v. Hastings" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of petitioners who challenged a trial court's decision to establish a 200-foot buffer zone around the Norfolk County Superior Court House during the trial of a high-profile murder case. The buffer zone was created in response to protests and demonstrations near the courthouse, which the Commonwealth argued could jeopardize a fair trial. The petitioners, who sought to intervene in the trial court proceedings to oppose the buffer zone, argued that it infringed on their First Amendment rights.The trial judge allowed the Commonwealth's motion for a buffer zone, albeit reducing it from the requested 500 feet to 200 feet. The judge denied the petitioners' motion to intervene, arguing that the buffer zone was necessary to ensure a fair trial and to protect jurors and witnesses from potential intimidation or harassment. The petitioners subsequently filed petitions for relief from both the buffer zone order and the denial of their motion to intervene.The single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied the petitions, concluding that the trial judge's decision was an ordinary procedural ruling and did not warrant the court's extraordinary power of general superintendence. The single justice also found that the buffer zone met the "reasonable restriction" requirements, being content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leaving open ample alternative channels for communication.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the single justice's decision, rejecting the petitioners' argument that the buffer zone order should be analyzed under strict scrutiny as a prior restraint on speech. The court found that the buffer zone did not forbid protestors from expressing their message, but merely restricted where they could do so. The court also noted that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the buffer zone extended onto public sidewalks or other areas constituting a public forum. View "Spicuzza v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In the case of Commonwealth v. Rashad Shepherd, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, with attempted unarmed robbery as the predicate felony. The case centered around a failed robbery attempt that ended in the shooting and death of the intended victim. The defendant, along with two co-conspirators, hatched a plan to rob the victim, who was known to sell marijuana from his apartment. However, when the plan was put into motion, the victim resisted, and in the ensuing altercation, was shot and killed. The prosecution's theory was that the defendant was the shooter.In his appeal, the defendant argued that the court’s decision in a prior case, Commonwealth v. Brown, which abolished felony-murder as an independent theory of liability for murder in the first and second degrees, should be applied to his case retroactively. He maintained that not doing so violated equal protection principles as more Black individuals were serving life sentences without parole for felony-murder than white individuals. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the decision in Brown was applied to all equally, regardless of race or ethnicity.The defendant also claimed errors in jury instructions and conduct by the trial judge, but the court determined that there was no reversible error. Lastly, the defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but the court found that the decisions by the defense were not manifestly unreasonable. View "Commonwealth v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

In this case, six plaintiffs -- two criminal defense organizations, two defense attorneys, and two former criminal defendants -- filed a petition against the District Attorney's Office for the Hampden District in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged multiple failures by the District Attorney's Office, primarily stemming from its handling of evidence of misconduct within the Springfield Police Department (the department). The U.S. Department of Justice had previously conducted an investigation and found that officers in the department, particularly those within the narcotics bureau, routinely falsified police reports and engaged in a pattern of excessive force.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the District Attorney's Office, through certain discovery policies, committed a breach of both the duty to disclose evidence that tends to exculpate defendants and the duty to investigate or inquire about such evidence. Specifically, the court identified three problematic practices: 1) disclosing adverse credibility findings made about the department's officers only on a discretionary basis; 2) withholding instances of officer misconduct from disclosure where a specific bad act cannot be clearly attributed to a particular officer; and 3) failing to gain access to all documents known to have been reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).To rectify these breaches, the court ordered the District Attorney's Office to obtain access to all categories of documents known to have been reviewed by the DOJ and disclose them to the plaintiffs. From there, case-by-case adjudication can begin to address the claims of individual defendants affected by the department's misconduct. In issuing this order, the court emphasized the importance of a prosecutor's dual duties -- to disclose and to investigate -- in upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system. View "Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden District" on Justia Law

In a case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the defendant, Denzel McFarlane, convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and other related charges, appealed for a new trial. He based his appeal on the fact that a police officer who had arrested and testified against him was found civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment in an unrelated lawsuit. McFarlane argued that the existence of the civil lawsuit against the officer was exculpatory information that the prosecution should have disclosed to the defense but failed to do so.The primary legal issue was whether the existence of a pending civil lawsuit against a police officer must be disclosed by a prosecutor as exculpatory evidence. The court held that the existence of a pending civil lawsuit against a police officer does not need to be disclosed by a prosecutor as exculpatory evidence. The court reasoned that until a finding of liability has been made, a pending civil lawsuit constitutes an unsubstantiated allegation of police misconduct that does not tend to negate the guilt of the defendant. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of McFarlane's motion for a new trial.In addition, the court established that while a prosecutor has no duty to inquire into pending civil lawsuits against a prosecution team member, the duty of inquiry does require that prosecutors inquire about the existence of any findings of civil liability related to the performance of a police officer's duties. In other words, if a police officer has been found liable in a civil lawsuit, the prosecution has a duty to discover that information and potentially disclose it to the defense. View "Commonwealth v. Mcfarlane" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, a civilly committed sexually dangerous person, petitioned the Department of Correction (DOC) for medical parole due to his deteriorating health conditions. The DOC denied his petition based on their policy that civilly committed individuals are ineligible for medical parole under G. L. c. 127, § 119A. The plaintiff sought review of this denial, arguing that his due process rights had been violated. A Superior Court judge allowed his motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the DOC to conduct a hearing on the plaintiff's medical parole petition.However, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed the judge's order. The court held that the medical parole statute applies only to committed offenders serving a criminal sentence, not to civilly committed sexually dangerous persons. It further held that sexually dangerous persons may seek release due to terminal illness or physical or mental incapacity under G. L. c. 123A, § 9, and denying them an additional avenue for relief by means of the medical parole statute does not offend substantive due process. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated by the DOC's policy that precludes civilly committed sexually dangerous persons from eligibility for medical parole. View "Murphy v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the defendant, Joshua Hart, and his girlfriend, Brittany Smith, entered the home of an elderly couple, Thomas Harty and his wife, Joanna Fisher, intending to steal their car and money. The couple ended up fatally attacking both Harty and Fisher, and then fled the state in the victims' vehicle. Hart was convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, and he appealed on several grounds.Hart argued that his confession to law enforcement was involuntary and should have been suppressed, but the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed. The court found that Hart's confession was voluntary based on the circumstances of the interrogation, his experience with the criminal justice system, and his own actions and statements during the interrogation.Hart also argued that the trial should have been moved to another venue due to pretrial publicity. The court disagreed, stating that the defendant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the pretrial publicity caused either presumptive or actual prejudice. The court found that less than 20% of potential jurors were excused due to pretrial publicity, and the judge took extensive steps to protect Hart's right to a fair trial.Hart further contended that a statement made by the deceased victim, Fisher, to her nurse, which was relayed to the jury through the nurse's testimony, should have been excluded from evidence as it was hearsay and violated his right to confront witnesses. The court determined that Fisher's statements were non-testimonial and thus did not violate the confrontation clause. The court also found that even if Fisher's statements were admitted in error, there was no prejudice because the Commonwealth presented other compelling evidence of the facts relayed in Fisher's statements.Finally, Hart argued that his sentences of life without the possibility of parole constituted cruel or unusual punishment because he was under 25 years old at the time of the crimes. The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to extend the prohibition of life sentences without parole for juveniles to individuals under the age of 25.Accordingly, the court affirmed Hart's convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Hart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for murder in the first degree based on a theory of felony-murder, among other charges, holding that a police officer's identification testimony was admitted improperly, but its admission did not prejudice Defendant.On appeal, Defendant challenged the denial of his motion to suppress, among numerous other allegations of error. For the claimed errors, Defendant requested that the court reduce his verdict or order a retrial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) a police officer's testimony identifying Defendant in a video recording at trial was improperly admitted, but the admission did not prejudice Defendant; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Fisher" on Justia Law