Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Steven Glovsky sought to solicit signatures for his nomination to the second district seat on the Governor’s Council on the sidewalk immediately outside the entrance to a supermarket owned by Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc. Despite believing he had a right under article 9 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to solicit signatures on the property, Glovsky left the property after a store manager informed him Roche Bros. prohibited this activity. Glovsky filed suit, requesting relief under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act for a violation of his rights “by threats, intimidation or coercion.” The superior court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated and set aside the portion of the judgment dismissing Glovsky’s request for declaratory relief under article 9 and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, holding (1) Glovsky adequately alleged a right to solicit nominating signatures outside the supermarket, but (2) Roche Bros. did not violate this right by threats, intimidation or coercion. Remanded for entry of a judgment dismissing the request for declaratory relief as moot. View "Glovsky v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. Defendant appealed, asserting several allegations of error. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree, holding (1) the trial court erred in admitting portions of Defendant’s statement to the police, as police officers intruded into Defendant’s invocation of his right to remain silent after Defendant exercised his right to cut off police questioning; (2) the prosecutor impermissibly used portions of Defendant’s postinvocation statement in his closing argument, and the prosecutor’s extensive use of propensity-based argument in his closing was improper; (3) the judge erred in instructing the jury on mental impairment; and (4) pursuant to the Court’s review of the entire case under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, the erroneous admission of Defendant’s postinvocation statement, combined with the other errors, required reversal. View "Commonwealth v. Howard" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of unarmed robbery and assault and battery. On appeal, Defendant challenged the trial court’s admission of expert opinion that the DNA profile generated from a known saliva sample of Defendant matched a DNA profile obtained from a swab taken from eyeglasses that were left at the scene of the robbery. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) an expert opinion regarding the results of DNA testing is not admissible unless the defendant has a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine the witness about the reliability of the underlying data produced by the DNA testing; and (2) in this case, the analysts who generated the DNA profiles did not testify at trial, and the expert witness who offered the opinion of a match had no affiliation with the laboratory that tested the crime scene sample, and therefore, Defendant was deprived of a meaningful opportunity for such cross-examination. Remanded for a new trial.View "Commonwealth v. Tassone " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing assault and battery on a person protected by an abuse and prevention order and of violating an abuse preventing order. The Appeals Court affirmed. Defendant filed an application for further appellate review, contending that the two offenses for which he was convicted were duplicative, and therefore, his convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) violation of an abuse prevention order is not a lesser included offense of assault and battery on a person protected by an abuse preventing order, and therefore, conviction of both offenses does not violate double jeopardy principles; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction of assault and battery on a person protected by an abuse prevention order.View "Commonwealth v. Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested in connection with the shooting death of Jonathan Nieves. While awaiting his initial appearance in the district court and after being held for approximately nine hours in the police station, Defendant was interrogated by police. Defendant moved to suppress the inculpatory statements he made during the interrogation, arguing that the statements were inadmissible under Commonwealth v. Rosario because they were made more than six hours after arrest and before being brought to court for arraignment. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, thus declining the Commonwealth’s request to revisit the Roasrio rule, as the rule “continues to serve as an important and practical protection of the constitutional and common-law rights of persons arrested for violations of the criminal laws.”View "Commonwealth v. Powell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and of possession of a firearm without a license. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and declined to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting evidence of bullet shell casings and live ammunition found hours after the shooting; (2) the trial court did not abuse his discretion in admitting admitting a recording of a jailhouse telephone call made by Defendant in which he used street jargon and offensive language; (3) jail officials did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights by monitoring and recording Defendant's telephone calls from jail and by sending law enforcement information derived from the calls; (4) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of murder under a joint venture theory; and (5) trial judge properly did not give the jury a special verdict slip and special jury instruction requiring the jury to determine separate whether Defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree as a principal or as an accomplice. View "Commonwealth v. Rosa" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this eminent domain action seeking damages from the Commonwealth on account of land takings that the Commonwealth made in connection with the Sagamore Bridge Flyover Project in Bourne that eliminated a traffic rotary north of the bridge. Plaintiff owned parcels of land near the former rotary and operated a gas station on one of the parcels. After a jury trial, Plaintiff was awarded almost $3 million in damages. The Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial court vacated the judgment of the superior court and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) because the flyover project was not laid over a public way that directly abutted Plaintiff’s property, Plaintiff was not entitled to damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 81, 7C as a matter of law; and (2) because Plaintiff retained reasonable and appropriate access to and from the gas station parcel, Plaintiff was not entitled to impairment of access damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 79, 12. View "Sorenti Bros., Inc. v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant, a noncitizen of the United States, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and received a sentence of probation. Defendant was subsequently arrested for driving without a license and taken into custody by immigration authorities. Contending that his defense counsel’s advice was constitutionally deficient, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. A superior court allowed the motion, concluding that Defendant’s counsel gave Defendant constitutionally deficient advice when he told Defendant he would be “eligible for deportation” if he pleaded guilty to the drug possession charges. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the conviction of a noncitizen with intent to distribute cocaine makes deportation or removal from the United States presumptively mandatory, counsel’s advice was constitutionally deficient in that it did not convey what is clearly stated in federal law.View "Commonwealth v. DeJesus" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of enticement of a child and four counts of attempting to commit certain offenses, including rape of a child, indecent assault and battery on a child, and disseminating matter harmful to a minor. The appeals court affirmed the convictions of enticement of a child, attempted rape, and attempted indecent assault and battery and vacated the convictions of disseminating matter harmful to a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of enticement of a child and reversed the convictions of attempt, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant’s convictions of attempted rape, attempted indecent assault and battery, and dissemination of matter harmful to a minor; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction of enticement of a child, the judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the introduction of certain photographs notwithstanding the Commonwealth’s prior stipulation not to introduce the photographs, and the police did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights by searching his computer for evidence.View "Commonwealth v. Buswell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an action alleging that the practice by which the Nation’s pledge of allegiance is recited each morning in Defendants’ public schools violated (1) Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights under the Massachusetts Constitution because the pledge included the words “under God,” and (2) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, 5, which prohibits discrimination in Massachusetts public school education. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and the intervenors. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the recitation of the pledge, which no student is required to recite, does not violate the Constitution or the statute.View "Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Reg’l Sch. Dist." on Justia Law