Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the judge did not err in excluding the third-party culprit evidence proffered by Defendant, and the judge did not commit reversible error by barring Defendant from testifying as to certain statements; (2) the failure to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that Defendant committed the offense; and (4) this Court declines to exercise its extraordinary power under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E to order a new trial or to reduce Defendant's sentence. View "Commonwealth v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed Defendant's conviction of two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon resulting in serious injury, holding that the trial court judge erred in excluding one of Defendant's experts, and this error was prejudicial.At trial, Defendant argued that he acted in self-defense and that the two men involved in the altercation were motivated to attack him by racial animus. To support his theory, Defendant sought to introduce the testimony of two experts who would testify that the tattoo found on one of the men was affiliated with a group that espoused white supremacist beliefs. The judge excluded both efforts on reliability grounds. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in excluding the testimony of one of the experts, and this error was prejudicial. View "Commonwealth v. Hinds" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying Petitioner's petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was charged with trafficking in heroin, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, and two civil motor vehicle infractions. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress, which was denied. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion to suppress, as well as a motion for recusal of the district court judge. The judge denied both motions. Petitioner then filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition arguing that the trial judge made multiple decisions that were unfairly prejudicial to him. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was nothing exceptional about Petitioner's case that warranted the exercise of this Court's extraordinary power. View "Torres v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition brought under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.Petitioner brought a personal injury action against Respondent, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. After the close of the evidence but prior to closing arguments, Petitioner indicated that he no longer wished to continue with the trial. After discussing the decision with Petitioner, the judge dismissed the complaint. Petitioner subsequently filed a notice of appeal and then a second notice of appeal. The judge dismissed the first appeal and then struck the second notice of appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition asking the court to declare a mistrial and to order a new trial. The single justice summarily denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on the underlying complaint. The Court then remanded the matter with instructions to process the second notice of appeal. View "Jahm v. Mall at Liberty Tree, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court summarily denying the Commonwealth's petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from an evidentiary order of the superior court judge in this criminal matter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the denial of relief.Defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony and other offenses. Defendant filed a motion requesting that the Commonwealth's test firing of an alleged firearm be observed by a defense expert. The superior court judge denied the request but ordered that the test firing to be recorded and that the recording be provided to Defendant. The Commonwealth brought this petition seeking relief from the order. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief. View "Commonwealth v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court set aside the verdict in this case, vacated Defendant's conviction, and remanded the matter for a new trial, holding that the prosecutor's failure to disclose certain statements and newly discovered evidence required that this matter be remanded.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. Prior to trial, the prosecutor failed to disclose testimony by the stepdaughter of the victim describing the victim's last words. Following trial, a forensic pathologist opined that the victim could not have spoken after he had been stabbed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor's failure to disclose the stepdaughter's testimony prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare and present his defense effectively; and (2) the pathologist's opinion likely would have been a real factor in the jury's deliberations. View "Commonwealth v. Rodriguez-Nieves" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and vacated his conviction of accessory after the fact to murder, holding that, under the circumstances, Defendant could not convicted of joint venture murder in the first degree and of accessory after the fact.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to prove murder in the first degree; (2) the jury instruction on joint venture liability was a correct statement of the law; (3) while the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant as an accessory after the fact, because one cannot properly be convicted of a crime and of being an accessory after the fact to the same crime, this conviction must be vacated; (4) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by failing to order the trial severed; (5) reversible error did not result from the judge's response to a jury question; and (6) there was no reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this matter to the county court for entry of a judgment allowing Defendant's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and ordering that the superior court judge's order hospitalizing Defendant under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, 16(a) be vacated, holding that Defendant's substantive due process rights were violated.A grand jury returned a twelve-count indictment charging Defendant with two counts of armed carjacking and multiple related charges. After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental illness. Thereafter, the judge granted the Commonwealth's motion to hospitalize Defendant for evaluation pursuant to section 16(a) for forty days. Defendant filed a petition pursuant to section 3 requesting relief from confinement. A single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter, holding that there was no constitutionally adequate justification to temporarily commit Defendant under section 16(a). View "Garcia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court exercised its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the jury's verdict of murder in the first degree to murder in the second degree, holding that, in light of the circumstances, a verdict of murder in the second degree was more consonant with justice.Defendant was fifteen years old when he killed the victim and had a history of trauma, impaired cognitive abilities, and mental health issues. Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after twenty years. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected most of Defendant's arguments but agreed that, in the circumstances of this case, there was ground for reducing the verdict from first to second degree murder. View "Commonwealth v. Concepcion" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the two judgments of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petitions for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, by which Petitioner sought pretrial release or a reduction in bail, holding that the single justice properly denied relief.Petitioner was charged with rape and indecent assault and battery on a person age fourteen or older. Bail was set at $75,000, an amount Petitioner was unable to post bail in this amount. Petitioner moved for immediate release based on the dangers of the coronavirus pandemic. The superior court denied relief. Upon further bail hearing, the judge reduced Petitioner's bail to $25,000. Petitioner was unable to post bail in this amount. Petitioner petitioned a single justice for relief from the two orders, but the justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief. View "Oquendo v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law