Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the motion judge erred in denying a motion to suppress the victim’s out-of-court eyewitness identification, and (2) DNA evidence identifying the victim as the source of blood found on Defendant’s shirt should have been suppressed because the DNA analysis constituted a search that required a warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the victim had told the police that the assailant wore a gray shirt and Defendant was the only person shown wearing a gray shirt in the photographic array, the victim did not select the photograph on that basis, and therefore, the judge did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) where, as in this case, DNA analysis is limited to the creation of a DNA profile from lawfully seized evidence of a crime and the profile is used only to identify its unknown source, the DNA analysis is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, no search warrant was required to conduct the DNA analysis of the bloodstain from Defendant’s clothing in this case. View "Commonwealth v. Arzola" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of a stun gun in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, 131J, which bans the possession of an electrical weapon with some exceptions. Defendant filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that a stun gun is an “arm” for purposes of the Second Amendment, and therefore, her possession of the stun gun was constitutionally protected. The motion was denied, and the trial judge found Defendant guilty of possession of the stun gun. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that chapter 140 section 131J does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as a stun gun is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection. View "Commonwealth v. Caetano" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and of possession of a firearm without a license. Defendant appealed, arguing that his attorney’s concession in opening statement and closing argument that Defendant committed the killing was tantamount to a guilty plea and that because a colloquy did not take place between the judge and Defendant as to whether Defendant made the concession knowingly and voluntarily, he was entitled to a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) no colloquy was required regarding defense counsel’s concession of guilt to the lesser included offense of manslaughter; and (2) because Defendant did not claim on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, there was no basis on which to vacate Defendant’s convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Evelyn" on Justia Law

Police officers stopped Defendant for driving with an unilluminated headlight. During the stop, the officers saw in the vehicle a one-ounce bag of marijuana. The officers ordered Defendant out of the vehicle and conducted a search of the vehicle in which they discovered two other bags of marijuana. Defendant was booked on charges of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The officers seized and searched Defendant’s cellular telephone, finding text messages they identified as being consistent with sales of marijuana. Defendant moved to suppress the marijuana found in his vehicle and the text messages discovered on his phone on the grounds that “police observation of one ounce or less of marijuana is insufficient, by itself, to give rise to the probable cause necessary to conduct a search.” The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the officers were permitted to enter the vehicle to effect the forfeiture of the marijuana they saw. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers’ entry into the vehicle was impermissible because they lacked probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime, and therefore, the evidence obtained as a result of the searches of Defendant’s vehicle and of his cellular telephone must be suppressed. View "Commonwealth v. Sheridan" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on a charge of receiving a stolen motor vehicle. Defendant moved to suppress evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of his garage. A superior court judge denied the motion. After a joint trial of Defendant and his codefendant, Defendant was convicted. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the superior court judge did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the warrantless entry into the garage was justified by exigent circumstances; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting recordings of jailhouse telephone calls between Defendant and his codefendant; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction. View "Commonwealth v. Ramos" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intimidating a witness, carrying a firearm without a license, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge (1) did not abuse his discretion in admitting two photographs of a handgun that looked like the unrecovered handgun fired by Defendant; (2) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty; but (3) erred in allowing the Commonwealth to present a witness’s prior recorded testimony without sufficient proof of the witness’s unavailability, and the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Commonwealth v. Housewright" on Justia Law

A juvenile was charged with possession of a class D substance with the intent to distribute marijuana after a street encounter during which a police officer arrested the juvenile. A judge in the juvenile court allowed the juvenile’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the juvenile court’s order of dismissal, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the complaint application in this case did not allege facts sufficient to establish probable cause as to each element of the offense charged. View "Commonwealth v. Ilya I." on Justia Law

Defendants were indicted on charges of murder, among other charges. The jury foreman initially announced not guilty verdicts as to each of the murder indictments but later amended the previously announced not guilty verdicts to find Defendants guilty of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the convictions for reasons not relevant to this appeal and remanded for a new trial. Defendants were retried and again convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed. Following various proceedings, Defendants filed a third motion for a new trial arguing that the jury had actually acquitted them of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation in the first trial, and therefore, the retrial on that same theory in the second trial violated their double jeopardy rights. A superior court judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the jury’s initial verdict did not have the double jeopardy consequence of barring retrial on a theory of premeditated murder. View "Commonwealth v. Brown" on Justia Law

In 2012, the probate and family court appointed Mother’s grandmother (“Great-Grandmother”) as the permanent guardian of Mother’s minor child. Mother subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), alleging that the judgment was void for lack of due process because she was not appointed by counsel in the guardianship proceeding. The probate and family court denied the motion. While Mother’s appeal from that denial was pending, the court granted Mother’s petition for removal of the guardian and vacated the guardianship. The child was returned to Mother’s custody. The Court dismissed Mother’s appeal as moot but exercised its discretion to address the issue of whether Mother was entitled to counsel. The Court held that a parent whose minor child is the subject of a guardianship proceeding and who cannot afford counsel has a right to have counsel appointed and to be so informed. View "In re Guardianship of V.V." on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped and arrested by law enforcement officers at the same time and in the same location as another man, Edwin Ramos, from whose person the officers recovered a packet of cocaine. Ramos was charged with possession of cocaine, and Defendant was charged with unlawful distribution of that same cocaine. A superior court judge allowed Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was entitled to assert standing to challenge the search and seizure of cocaine from Ramos under a theory of “target standing.” The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the facts of this case did not support Defendant’s claim of target standing. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Santiago" on Justia Law