Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, holding that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant moved to suppress the results of a blood alcohol content (BAC) analysis conducted by a crime lab after the police obtained and executed a search warrant for Defendant's blood, arguing that he did not consent to having his blood tested. The trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that, in a prosecution under 24(1)(a), where the Commonwealth wishes to have admitted BAC evidence arising from testing or analysis of a defendant's blood done "by or at the direction of" police, police must first obtain the defendant's consent to the "chemical test or analysis" of his blood that may result from such evidence, regardless of whomever first drew the blood. View "Commonwealth v. Moreau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Appellants' petitions for relief in the county court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 from the order of the municipal court that Appellants be detained on the ground of dangerousness, holding that there was no error. Appellants were charged with unlicensed firearm possession pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10(a) and held before trial on the ground of dangerousness. On appeal, Appellants argued that including unlicensed firearm possession as a predicate offense violates substantive and procedural due process and that there was insufficient evidence of their dangerousness. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) unlicensed possession of a firearm is a constitutional predicate offense under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 58A(1); and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the determinations that Appellants should be held on the ground of dangerousness. View "Vega v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the opinion of a panel of the appeals court affirming the probation violation hearing judge's ruling that Probationer had violated the terms of his probation by committing new crimes, revoking his probation, and sentencing him to a term of incarceration, holding that Probationer's inability to question his accuser violated his right to present a defense.The hearing justice revoked Probationer's probation on the basis of hearsay statements by the complainant, his former fiancee, who alleged that Probationer had repeatedly raped her over a period of four months when they were living together. On appeal, Probationer argued that his constitutional due process rights were violated because the complainant did not appear at the hearing to testify or to be cross-examined. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that precluding Probationer from calling the accuser as a witness at the hearing violated Probationer's due process right to present a defense. View "Commonwealth v. Costa" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of a judge of the superior court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm discovered during what Defendant alleged was an unlawful patfrisk, holding that the motion to suppress was properly granted.The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the grant of Defendant's motion to suppress, arguing that the officers' suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous was reasonable. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the motion judge properly found that Defendant's behavior did not create reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous; and (2) Defendant's reactions to the traffic stop did not justify the subsequent patfrisk. View "Commonwealth v. Garner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this matter to the county court for entry of a judgment declaring that the Attorney General's summary and the Secretary's one-statement statements regarding a legislative amendment were in compliance with the requirements of article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by article 74 of the Amendments.At issue in this case was a legislative amendment that would impose a tax on a portion of annual incomes of $1 million, to be used, subject to appropriation by the legislature, for education and transportation purposes. In preparing to submit the amendment to voters the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth prepared informational materials to be distributed across the Commonwealth. Plaintiffs argued that some of the materials were constitutionally and statutorily defective. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) the Attorney General's summary was in compliance with the requirements of article 48, as amended by article 74; and (2) the Attorney General and Secretary's one-sentence statements describing the effects of a "yes" vote and a "no" vote are in compliance with the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 54, 53. View "Anderson v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 21-13 to be placed on the ballot in the 2022 statewide election complied with article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.On September 1, 2021, the Attorney General certified to the Secretary of the Commonwealth that the initiative petition at issue, entitled "Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement Medical Loss Ratios for Dental Benefit Plans," was in proper form for submission to the people. After it was determined that a sufficient number of certified signatures had been submitted Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that the measure was not in compliance with the requirement that an initiative petition contain only subjects that are related or that are mutually dependent. The Supreme Judicial Court denied relief, holding that Initiative Petition 21-13 did not contain unrelated subjects and that the Attorney General's certification complied with article 48. View "Clark v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Attorney General's decision to certify two initiative petitions to be placed on the ballot in the 2022 statewide election was in error and that the petitions may not be placed on the ballot.Plaintiffs, twelve registered voters, brought this action arguing that the two initiative petitions, each proposing "A Law Defining and Regulating the Contract-Based Relationship Between Network Companies and App-Based Drivers," violated the requirement under article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution that initiative petitions must contain only related or mutually dependent subjects. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding (1) the initiative petitions were not in compliance with the related subjects requirement of article 48; and (2) therefore, the petitions were not suitable to be placed in the 2022 statewide election. View "El Koussa v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Attorney General's certification of Initiative Petition 21-03, "An Initiative Petition for a Law Relative to 21st Century Alcohol Retail Reform," holding that the Attorney General properly certified the initiative as in proper form to be submitted to the voters.Plaintiffs, opponents of the initiative, sought to enjoin the Secretary of State from placing the petition on the November ballot, arguing that the certification of the petition was improper because the measure did not present "a unified statement of public policy on which the voters can fairly vote 'yes' or 'no.'" The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the Attorney General's certification of the initiative petition was in compliance with the requirements of article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. View "Colpack v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court granting in part Defendant's gatekeeper petition to appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial and reversed the motion judge's denial of Defendant's motion, holding that the Commonwealth violated its obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and prejudiced Defendant.In 1986, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. At issue before the Supreme Judicial Court was Defendant's second motion for a new trial, in which Defendant alleged that several pieces of evidence were not disclosed at his criminal trial. The motion judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that Defendant established that the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and that such nondisclosure was prejudicial. View "Commonwealth v. Pope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for four counts of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder and the order denying his motion for a new trial and declined to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; (2) Defendant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) Defendant's argument that exculpatory evidence pointed to another suspect was unavailing; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; and (5) the judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to strike a juror. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law