Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Defendant, who was known to be associated with a gang, was indicted for the murder of a fourteen-year-old and the wounding of a fifteen-year-old. The Commonwealth, which believed the murder was committed in connection with the gang’s criminal activities, obtained from a cooperating witness a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Defendant and other gang members, during which Defendant admitted to the killing. Defendant sought to suppress the recorded conversation as well as statements he made to the police during a post-arrest interview. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress as to all of his statements. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress with respect to Defendant’s recorded conversation; but (2) reversed the denial with respect to statements Defendant made during the custodial interview after clearly invoking his right to remain silent.View "Commonwealth v. Hearns" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder, and related crimes. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of conviction and declined to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial pursuant to the Court’s power under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (2) Defendant’s counsel rendered effective assistance; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury. View "Commonwealth v. Johnston" on Justia Law

In 2000, John Buonomo retired from his position as a Somerville alderman and began receiving pension benefits from the retirement board of Somerville (“Board”). Buonomo was subsequently elected register of probate of Middlesex County. In 2009, Buonomo was convicted of several offenses, including breaking into a depository and embezzlement by a public officer, which crimes were committed while Buonomo was register of probate. In light of Buonomo’s criminal convictions, the Board voted to forfeit Buonomo’s pension under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 15. The district court reversed the Board’s decision, determining that because the crimes for which Buonomo was convicted did not arise from his work as a Somerville alderman, for which he was receiving the retirement allowance, the Board lacked a basis for revoking Buonomo’s pension. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) there is no requirement in section 15 that the public office to which a board of alderman for the city of Somerville member’s criminal convictions relate be the same as the public office from which that member is receiving a retirement allowance; and (2) because Buonomo violated the laws applicable to a position of public trust, Buonomo forfeited his entitlement to a retirement allowance from the Board.View "Ret. Bd. of Somerville v. Buonomo " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing or concealing stolen paintings. The victim of the theft (Plaintiff) filed a civil suit against Defendant for, among other claims, violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) due to Defendant’s transfers of assets to his family members following the discovery of his identity as the holder of the stolen paintings. Plaintiff also brought claims for relief under the UFTA against Defendant’s family members alleged to have received the fraudulent transfers. A jury found Defendant had made seven fraudulent transfers within the meaning of the UFTA, entering judgment against Defendant for more than $4.3 million. Additionally, the judge ordered equitable remedies against the relief defendants for the purposes of identifying specific assets that had been fraudulently conveyed and could be subject to reconveyance in satisfaction of the judgment against Defendant. Lastly, the judge dismissed the claim against one of the relief defendants concerning assets in a shared trust because the funds in the trust had been dissipated. Defendant appealed, arguing that money judgments should have been ordered against the relief defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment except in respect to a savings account and the shared trust. Remanded.View "Bakwin v. Mardirosian" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape. Defendant’s appeal centered on his argument that the victim, an undocumented immigrant, characterized her consensual sex with Defendant as rape in her report to police to obtain immigration benefits. Specifically, Defendant claimed (1) he was denied the right to impeach the victim with evidence of a prior incident of sexual assault, after which she received a temporary work authorization; and (2) he should have been allowed to access Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) records concerning the victim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge properly determined that the probative value of any testimony concerning the prior incident of sexual assault would be outweighed by its prejudicial impact; and (2) Defendant did not make the necessary threshold showing that he was entitled to production of BARCC records.View "Commonwealth v. Sealy" on Justia Law

In 1997, Defendant pleaded guilty to a drug-related offense. Defendant was released in 1999 after completing his sentence on that conviction. In 2003, Defendant pleaded guilty to firearm-related offenses. In 2005, while he was incarcerated for his 2003 convictions, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea for the 1997 offense. The motion was allowed, and the 1997 offense was eventually vacated. In 2011, while still incarcerated. Defendant filed a motion seeking credit for the time he had served on the vacated 1997 conviction against the sentences that he was serving on the 2003 convictions. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion, but the Appeals Court granted reversed and granted relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for credit, holding (1) credit for time served on a vacated conviction cannot be applied against time to be served on new and unrelated sentences; and (2) moreover, allowing credit in this fashion implicates the prohibition against banking time. View "Commonwealth v. Holmes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. Defendant’s defense was that a third party killed the victim while Defendant was unconscious due to severe intoxication. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) any prejudice in the admission into evidence of recorded telephone calls made on the day of the murder between Defendant and his girlfriend was cured by the judge; (2) the admission of a medical record showing that Defendant tested negative for any drugs was error, but Defendant suffered no risk of a miscarriage of justice; (3) counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (4) the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury that there is no “legal limit” of intoxication for any purposes other than determining whether one is guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and (5) Defendant’s claim that his right to a public trial during jury empaneled was violated was waived. View "Commonwealth v. Wall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on one indictment alleging forcible rape of a child under sixteen years of age and two indictments alleging indecent assault and battery of a child under fourteen years of age. The appeals court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the judge erred in allowing the prosecutor on cross-examination to elicit expert testimony that both explicitly and implicitly vouched for the credibility of the victim witness regarding her allegations of sexual abuse. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court improperly admitted testimony during cross-examination of the victim’s therapist that implicitly vouched for the credibility of the victim, and the error was prejudicial. View "Commonwealth v. Quinn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping and of accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex. The Appeals Court reversed the judgment on the indictment charging accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex, concluding that because the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that Defendant’s conduct involved “sexually explicit language or acts,” the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proving that Defendant’s conduct was “offensive.” The Supreme Judicial affirmed the judgment of conviction on the indictment charging accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex, holding (1) the jury properly could have found the elements of accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Defendant’s counsel provided effective assistance pertaining to his conviction of accosting or annoying a person of the opposite sex. View "Commonwealth v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape, armed robbery, and related offenses. On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor’s several references to his initial invocation of his right to remain silent violated his constitutional due process rights. The Appeals Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s references to Defendant’s invocation of his rights as set forth in Miranda v. Arizona at trial constituted error; but (2) under the circumstances of this case, the improper references did not raise a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Letkowski" on Justia Law