Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated rape, kidnapping, and related crimes. In his third motion for a new trial, Defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a court room closure during jury empanelment. The motion judge denied the motion without a hearing. Defendant sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion, arguing that prejudice under the second prong of the standard regarding ineffective assistance of counsel set forth in Commonwealth v. Saferian must be presumed due to the structural nature of the right to a public trial. The judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where a defendant has procedurally waived a Sixth Amendment public trial claim by not raising it at trial and later raises the claim as one of ineffective assistance of counsel in a collateral attack on his conviction, the defendant is required to show prejudice from trial counsel’s deficient performance, and the presumption of prejudice that would otherwise apply to a preserved claim of structural error does not apply. View "Commonwealth v. LaChance" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony-murder, with armed robbery as the predicate felony. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a required finding of not guilty because the evidence was sufficient to establish that Defendant was at the scene of the crime during the period when the victim was robbed and killed; (2) the trial judge did not err in allowing the admission of expert testimony concerning the potential absence of blood on the victim’s killer; and (3) an error in the prosecutor’s closing argument did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Evans" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements made during two police interviews and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and declined to exercise its power to reduce the degree of guilt or to order a new trial, holding (1) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as Defendant’s statements were made voluntarily and after an effective waiver of Defendant’s Miranda rights, and there was no evidence the police coerced Defendant; and (2) counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a claim in Defendant’s motion for a new trial that Defendant’s right to prompt arraignment had been violated. View "Commonwealth v. Vincent" on Justia Law

Mark Sheehan, a nonimmunized witness in a criminal trial, refused to answer questions posed by the prosecutor concerning his use of illegal drugs by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. The judge ruled that the invocation of the privilege was not valid because Sheehan had not shown that the Commonwealth had the intention of pursuing such a prosecution. The judge then found Sheehan in summary criminal contempt and imposed a sentence of ninety days’ incarceration. Sheehan intervened in the criminal proceeding and appealed the judgment of contempt. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of contempt, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Sheehan validly invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, and Sheehan’s compelled responses to such questioning did not constitute a waiver of the privilege. View "Commonwealth v. LeClair" on Justia Law

In 1980, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner filed several postconviction motions in the trial court. The instant filing was treated by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court as a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition and subsequently denied. Petitioner’s claims stemmed from a hearing and decision on a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition the Commonwealth successfully sought during the course of prosecuting Petitioner for murder. Petitioner now complained that the hearing on the petition was improperly held ex parte. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Tyree v. Commonwealth" 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

Plaintiffs and Defendant were neighbors. Because of false police reports filed by Defendant, Defendant was granted a harassment prevention order against Plaintiffs, which was later vacated. Defendant also filed several criminal complaints against Plaintiffs, each of which was dismissed. Additionally, Defendant installed several video cameras in his house, which were pointed at Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. The superior court allowed Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to all claims. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the dismissal of the invasion of privacy claim and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs made out a plausible claim for invasion of privacy; and (2) there was no error in the judge’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.View "Polay v. McMahon" on Justia Law

A ten-year-old boy was in a kayak fishing with his father when Defendant, who was piloting a motorboat, struck the kayak, killing the boy and seriously injuring the father. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor homicide by vessel and misleading a police officer. Defendant challenged the validity of both convictions on appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) reversed Defendant’s conviction for misleading a police officer, holding that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant had the specific intent necessary to prove a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, 13B; and (2) affirmed Defendant’s homicide conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence that Defendant was operating while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which diminished his capacity to operate the vessel safely. View "Commonwealth v. Morse" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of a crime and sentenced to a period of imprisonment followed by community parole supervision for life (CPSL). While serving his CPSL sentence, Petitioner tested positive for opiates. During the CPSL revocation proceedings that followed, Petitioner was confined pursuant to parole board regulations pursuant to parole board regulations. While Petitioner was confined, the Commonwealth filed a petition in the superior court alleging that Petitioner was a sexually dangerous person (SDP). The parole board found a CPSL violation, and Petitioner’s confinement continued as a sanction for the CPSL violation. Petitioner was civilly committed pending the outcome of the SDP petition. While temporarily committed, Petitioner filed this complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking a declaration that his due process rights were violated in the CPSL revocation proceeding and that his CPSL sentence was unconstitutional under separation of powers principles. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that Petitioner’s CPSL sentence and his incarceration were unlawful, and therefore, Petitioner was not a “prisoner” for purposes of the SDP statute when the Commonwealth filed its SDP petition.View "Gangi v. Mass. Parole Bd." on Justia Law