Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony-murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that there was no error that would necessitate a new trial, and there was no reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to order a new trial or to reduce the conviction to a lesser degree of guilt.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his felony-murder conviction must be reversed because his accomplice was killed during a struggle with the intended robbery victim, and therefore, the theory of felony-murder was inapplicable. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the felony-murder rule was applicable; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions; and (3) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "Commonwealth v. Duke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, 178H(a)(2) does not permit an individual convicted of failure to register as a sex offender, subsequent offense, to be sentenced to a term of incarceration in prison of less than five years.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to register as a sex offender, subsequent offense, under section 178H(a)(2). As to count two, the judge announced that he intended to sentence Defendant to one or two years in the state prison but stayed the sentence pending his report of questions now before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court answered (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, 178H(a)(2). does not permit a state prison sentence for a period of less than five years; and (2) the court's proposed sentence in this case was unlawful under section 178H(a)(2). View "Commonwealth v. Rossetti" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for review pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 248, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Petitioner was charged with three offenses related to a domestic incident. Petitioner pled not guilty and then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was not probable cause to charge him with a crime. A single justice denied the petition. Petitioner then filed his petition in the county court unsuccessfully challenging that order. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the single justice erred in denying relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Del Gallo v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court vacating the order of the superior court judge granting pretrial release to Defendant, holding that the single justice acted pursuant to his broad powers and within his considerable discretion.In 2017, Defendant was arraigned on various charges and held without bail. Defendant later filed multiple motions for release based on the health risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by his heart condition. The fourth motion resulted in Defendant's being released temporarily from pretrial custody subject to certain conditions. The single justice vacated the order and directed that Defendant continue to be held without bail. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the single justice's determination was not an abuse of discretion. View "Commonwealth v. Herring" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the superior court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss insofar as it concerned the charge of murder in the first degree on a joint venture theory, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support this conviction.Defendant charged with murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, accessory after the fact to murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a loaded firearm without a license. After four days of deliberations the jury deadlocked, and the trial judge declared a mistrial. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a retrial would violate his right against double jeopardy. After the motion judge denied the motion Defendant filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the cause, holding that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant shared the lethal intent of the shooter required to support a conviction of murder in the first degree on a joint venture theory. View "Baxter v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the motion judge granting a continuance sought by the Commonwealth for the express purpose of delaying resolution of the case past the juvenile's eighteenth birthday, holding that, absent certain findings, it was an abuse discretion to allow the continuance.Where the motion judge granted the continuance in this case, it meant the difference between twenty days and twelve months the juvenile spent in the custody of the Department of Youth Services. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) continuances for the sole purpose of extending the time of commitment are authorized only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the continued commitment is necessary for the rehabilitation of the juvenile and express findings are made to that effect after an evidentiary hearing; and (2) because no such findings were made in the instant case and the juvenile had already turned eighteen, it was an abuse of discretion to allow the continuance. View "Noah v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that "tower dumps" are not per se unconstitutional and that investigators may use tower dumps so long as they comply with the warrant requirements of article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.The Commonwealth obtained search warrants for seven different "tower dumps," a law enforcement tool that provides investigators with the cell site location information for all devices that connected to specific cell towers during a particular time frame, corresponding to the locations of several crimes. Defendant was ultimately charged with six robberies and a homicide. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the tower dumps as the fruit of an unconstitutional search. The superior court judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part, holding (1) investigators may use tower dumps so long as they comply with the warrant requirements of article 14; (2) the second of the two warrants in this case was supported by probable cause and therefore did not offend the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; but (3) the first warrant was not supported by probable cause, and any evidence obtained from it must be suppressed. View "Commonwealth v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order of the superior court judge allowing the forfeiture in this case, holding that firearms found to be improperly secured according to the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, 131L are not subject to forfeiture under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 3(b), which regulates the disposal of certain firearms seized during the execution of a search warrant.Police obtained a search warrant to search Defendant's home for a firearm allegedly used in an altercation. During the search, officers found that some of Defendant's more than 240 firearms appeared to be improperly secured. Defendant was subsequently indicted on twenty-seven counts of improperly securing a firearm and convicted on twelve counts. Defendant later moved for the return of all twenty-seven of the seized firearms. A superior court judge ordered the return of the firearms seized during during the execution of the search warrant with the exception of the twelve that had been found to have been improperly secured, which the judge ordered be forfeited and destroyed. The Court of Appeals vacated the order below, holding that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, 129D applies only to firearms "deliver[ed] or surrender[ed]," not to those seized during a lawful search. View "Commonwealth v. Fleury" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and home invasion, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal from his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial Defendant asserted a number of allegedly erroneous evidentiary rulings, claimed that the Commonwealth failed to comply with its discovery obligations, and contended that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no reversible error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below; and (2) there was no reason for this Court to exercise its authority to grant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Kostka" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part the denial of Defendant's motions for postconviction relief and otherwise affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree based on both deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, holding that the trial court erred in part.Here, Defendant appealed from his convictions and from the denial of two postconviction motions. One of those motions requested forensic testing pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A and the other requesting an advance of expert fees. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed in part, holding (1) as to Defendant's direct appeal there was no reversible error; (2) there was no reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E; (3) the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for expert fees because it was premature; but (4) Defendant's motion requesting forensic analysis met the threshold requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278A, 3, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the motion. View "Commonwealth v. Steadman" on Justia Law