Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against two minor girls, Kathy and Denise, who lived with him at the time of the alleged abuse. Kathy testified that the defendant touched her inappropriately on multiple occasions, including an incident where he allegedly penetrated her. Denise testified that the defendant sexually abused her in various ways, including touching and penetrating her. The defendant sought to introduce evidence of Denise's prior allegations of sexual abuse by a third party, arguing that the similarities between those allegations and her allegations against him suggested fabrication.The Superior Court judge excluded evidence of Denise's prior allegations under the rape shield statute, which generally bars evidence of a victim's past sexual conduct. The judge also prohibited cross-examination on this topic, reasoning that the evidence did not fall within any exceptions to the statute and that the policy of protecting victims, especially children, favored exclusion. The jury convicted the defendant on several charges, but acquitted him on others. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions, and the defendant sought further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of Denise's prior allegations of sexual abuse. The court found that the rape shield statute did apply to the evidence in question but concluded that the exclusion violated the defendant's constitutional rights to confront witnesses and present a complete defense. The court determined that the similarities between Denise's allegations against the defendant and her prior allegations were significant enough to warrant cross-examination. The court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the centrality of Denise's testimony to the prosecution's case. View "Commonwealth v. Jacques" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of sexual offenses against his granddaughter and sentenced to state prison followed by five years of supervised probation. The probation conditions included GPS monitoring and a requirement to stay away from the victim and her family. After his release, the defendant moved to vacate the GPS condition, arguing it was unconstitutional without an individualized determination of its reasonableness, as required by a recent court decision.The Superior Court judge denied the motion, finding the GPS condition reasonable and added exclusion zones for the cities of Framingham and Marlborough, which were not specified in the original sentence. The defendant appealed, arguing that the GPS condition was unreasonable and that adding exclusion zones violated double jeopardy principles.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the addition of exclusion zones did not violate double jeopardy because the original sentence contemplated such zones. However, the court found that the scope of the exclusion zones, covering entire cities, was overly broad and increased the severity of the defendant's sentence. The court affirmed the GPS condition as reasonable, given the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's moderate risk of reoffense, but remanded for revision of the exclusion zones to be consistent with statutory and probationary goals.The court also directed the probation department to remove GPS monitors from defendants who had not received a reasonableness hearing and to refrain from attaching monitors until such hearings are held, ensuring compliance with constitutional requirements. View "Commonwealth v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory, with armed robbery as the predicate offense. The victim, who sold drugs from her apartment, was found stabbed to death. The defendant, a frequent customer who owed the victim money, was linked to the crime through text messages, surveillance footage, and DNA evidence. The victim's cell phones and a pill bottle with her name were missing, and a bloodstained jacket containing these items was found near the defendant's residence.The case was initially tried in the Superior Court, where the defendant was found guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting Y-STR DNA evidence, a compilation exhibit, and testimony from a substitute DNA analyst. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the armed robbery charge.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the Y-STR DNA evidence was properly admitted, as it was presented with sufficient context for the jury to evaluate its significance. The court also found that the substitute analyst's testimony was not hearsay and that the compilation exhibit did not prejudice the defendant. Finally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the armed robbery charge, as the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant took the victim's cell phones and pill bottle with the intent to steal.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant's conviction and declined to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, finding no reason to reduce the conviction or order a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Souza" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of uttering after cashing a forged check drawn on an account of a person who did not know her. On January 19, 2019, the defendant cashed a personal check for $3,600 at a bank, presenting her driver's license. The check was drawn from an account belonging to an individual named Eileen, whose first name was misspelled on the check. The account holder later discovered unauthorized checks drawn on her account and contacted the police. The defendant was charged with larceny by check and uttering.The case was initially tried in the Malden Division of the District Court Department, where the defendant was found guilty of uttering but not guilty of larceny. The defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty was denied. The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the evidence to determine if it was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the check was forged. The court found that the evidence, including the account holder's unfamiliarity with the defendant, the misspelled signature, and the amount of the check, was insufficient to establish the defendant's knowledge of the forgery. The court emphasized that the evidence must be more than conjecture or inference piled upon inference. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the District Court, set aside the verdict, and ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon after attacking two victims with a hammer. The defendant admitted to hitting the victims but claimed self-defense. During the trial, the prosecution introduced a text message and social media posts to demonstrate the defendant's animosity toward the victims. The defendant sought to call an expert to dispute the authenticity of these posts, but the trial judge excluded the expert's testimony due to untimely disclosure.The case was first tried in the Superior Court, where the defendant was found guilty of more severe charges. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial due to the improper exclusion of expert testimony. In the retrial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. The Appeals Court later reversed these convictions, finding errors in the admission of the social media posts and the exclusion of the expert testimony. The Supreme Judicial Court then granted further appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the trial court's decisions. The court held that the text message and social media posts were admissible as they were probative of the defendant's animus and intent, and their probative value was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The court also found no abuse of discretion in excluding the expert testimony, as the late disclosure prejudiced the Commonwealth and the testimony was minimally material to the case's outcome. The judgments were affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Hinds" on Justia Law

In 2007, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory, with armed robbery as the predicate felony, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. The incident involved the defendant shoplifting, being confronted by store employees, and subsequently stabbing two employees, resulting in one death. The defendant's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2011.In 2018, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not employing a neuropsychologist to support a mental impairment defense. He also renewed a motion to reduce the verdict. A Superior Court judge held an evidentiary hearing in 2021, where expert testimony suggested the defendant's intent was impaired by panic during the incident. The motion judge denied the new trial motion but reduced the verdict to second-degree murder, citing a sense of injustice and referencing a recent legal standard requiring actual malice for murder convictions.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It affirmed the denial of the new trial motion, agreeing that the failure to present the mental impairment defense did not deprive the defendant of a substantial ground of defense. However, the court found that the motion judge abused his discretion in reducing the verdict. The reduction was improperly based on the sentence for first-degree murder and the judge's interpretation of a recent legal standard not applicable to the case. The court reversed the reduction of the verdict, reinstating the first-degree murder conviction. View "Commonwealth v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, who was indicted for unlawful possession of a firearm and related offenses after Boston police officers monitored his Snapchat account and observed him brandishing firearms in several videos. The police used an undercover Snapchat account to send a friend request to the defendant, who accepted it, allowing the officers to view his posts. The defendant was arrested twice, once in January 2018 and again in May 2018, each time after posting videos showing him with firearms.In the Superior Court, the defendant filed multiple discovery motions seeking information about the Boston Police Department's (BPD) use of undercover social media monitoring, arguing that it was relevant to an equal protection claim of discriminatory enforcement. The court granted these motions, ordering the Commonwealth to disclose various pieces of information, including the usernames and profile images used by undercover officers. The Commonwealth refused to comply, citing concerns about compromising ongoing investigations and endangering informants.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the Commonwealth did not properly assert a privilege to withhold the requested information, as it failed to demonstrate a legitimate need to protect ongoing investigations or the safety of informants. The court also affirmed the lower court's application of the equal protection standard from Commonwealth v. Long, which applies to claims of discriminatory law enforcement practices beyond traffic stops.The court concluded that the Superior Court judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the indictments with prejudice as a sanction for the Commonwealth's deliberate non-compliance with the discovery order. The dismissal was deemed appropriate because the Commonwealth's refusal to provide the requested discovery denied the defendant the opportunity to develop his equal protection claim, thus preventing a fair trial. View "Commonwealth v. Dilworth" on Justia Law

In December 1974, Peter Sulfaro was shot and killed during an armed robbery at his shoe repair shop. His son, Paul Sulfaro, was the only witness. Three men, including Raymond Gaines, were convicted of the crime. Decades later, Gaines filed a motion for a new trial, citing new evidence and issues with the original trial.Gaines's convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1978. He made several unsuccessful attempts for postconviction relief. In 2021, he filed his fourth motion for a new trial, which was granted by a Superior Court judge. The Commonwealth appealed this decision to the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and upheld the decision to grant a new trial. The court found that new scientific research on eyewitness identification, which was not available at the time of the original trial, could have significantly impacted the jury's deliberations. Additionally, the court found that the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, including a note about a leg injury Gaines sustained before the crime and the arrest of a key witness, David Bass, which could have been used to challenge his credibility. The court also noted that the Commonwealth had an ethical duty to disclose any witness recantations, regardless of their credibility or timing.The court concluded that the combination of these factors indicated that justice may not have been done in the original trial, and therefore, a new trial was warranted. The decision to grant a new trial was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Gaines" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, David E. Canjura, who was arrested by Boston police officers on July 3, 2020, after an altercation with his girlfriend. During a search incident to the arrest, officers found a spring-assisted knife on Canjura. He was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon under G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), and assault and battery on a family or household member. Canjura conceded the knife met the statutory definition of a switchblade but challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the Second Amendment.In the Boston Municipal Court, Canjura filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights. The judge denied the motion, and Canjura entered a conditional plea, reserving his right to appeal. The court accepted his plea and placed him on administrative probation, while the assault and battery charge was dismissed at the Commonwealth's request. Canjura appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and applied the two-part test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. The court first determined that switchblades are "arms" under the Second Amendment, as they fit historical definitions and were commonly used for lawful purposes at the time of the founding. The court then examined whether the statute was consistent with the nation's historical tradition of arms regulation. Finding no historical analogues to justify the regulation of switchblades, the court concluded that G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), violated the Second Amendment. The court reversed the denial of Canjura's motion to dismiss, vacated his admission to sufficient facts, and ordered judgment to enter for the defendant on the dangerous weapon charge. View "Commonwealth v. Canjura" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the stabbing death of his ex-girlfriend, Kathryn Mauke. The defendant and the victim had dated on and off for several years, but the victim ended the relationship in December 2014. On February 11, 2015, the defendant left work early, walked to the victim's home, and stabbed her thirty-two times. The defendant's primary defense at trial was that he was not criminally responsible due to mental illness, which the jury rejected.The case was initially tried in the Superior Court, where the defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the testimony of two incarcerated informants was unreliable and that his trial counsel was ineffective. The motion was denied by the same judge who presided over the trial. The defendant then appealed both his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the testimony of the two incarcerated informants was permissible and declined to create a new rule requiring reliability hearings for such testimony. However, the court mandated supplemental jury instructions for future cases involving incarcerated informants. The court also found that the defendant's trial counsel provided effective assistance and that the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments were proper. The court concluded that the defendant's sentence of life without parole was unconstitutional based on a recent decision, Commonwealth v. Mattis, and modified the sentence to allow for parole eligibility after thirty years. The court affirmed the conviction and the denial of the motion for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Lacrosse" on Justia Law