Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this matter concerning the search of a warehouse pursuant to a warrant that was issued in part based on the odor of unburnt marijuana the Supreme Judicial Court remanded this matter to the district court for further proceedings, holding that the warrant affidavit supported a finding of probable cause to search the commercial building for evidence of illegal marijuana cultivation.Defendant filed a motion to suppress due to a lack of probable cause to issue the warrant. Before the district court judge had issued a decision on the motion, the parties requested that the judge report a question to the appeals court. The judge allowed the request and reported the question. The Supreme Judicial Court transferred the appeal to this Court and concluded that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the warehouse for evidence of marijuana cultivation. View "Commonwealth v. Long" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the municipal court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his admission and vacate the court's finding of sufficient facts for a finding of guilty on two counts of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, holding that reversal was required where the challenged admission led to removal proceedings.After his admission and the commencement of deportation proceedings, Defendant unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his admission based on the contention that the judge failed to provide the general advisory warning that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 29D entitles every criminal defendant to receive. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the immigration consequences warning articulated by the plea judge during the colloquy did not suffice "so to advise" Defendant, as required by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 29D. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the offense-specific warning provided to Defendant was confusing and was neither equivalent to, nor an adequate substitute for, the more general advisory that Defendant was entitled to under the statute. View "Commonwealth v. Petit-Homme" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for murder in the first degree with deliberate premeditation, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, armed assault with intent to murder, and other crimes, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant's murder conviction; (2) a firearm or other gun need to be operational to prove either assault by means of a dangerous weapon or armed assault with intent to murder because armed assault with intent to murder requires only that the defendant think his weapon is operational; (3) the instructions were not correct with respect to armed assault by means of intent to murder and assault with a dangerous weapon, but Defendant was the beneficiary of the error; and (4) there was no reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce to set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Buttimer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that there was no basis to set aside or reduct the verdict.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction of murder in the first degree; (2) there was no reversible error in the manner in which the judge handled two issues that arose in connection with two sitting jurors; (3) the judge did not err in admitting prior bad acts evidence to show motive; and (4) the statements made by the Commonwealth during closing argument were proper. View "Commonwealth v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and declined to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce or set aside the verdict, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts; (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the judge's decision not to give Defendant's preferred eyewitness instruction; (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the judge's decision to deny Defendant's motion for a mistrial; and (4) there was no basis to grant extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, holding that the Commonwealth erroneously elicited false testimony and failed to correct the false testimony, which created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.During trial, a state police trooper testified that Defendant told police during two separate interviews that he was picked up on the night of the shooting in the area of a Dunkin' Donuts restaurant that was near the crime scene. Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the trooper testified falsely. The judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) as made clear by the trooper's police reports and transcripts of Defendant's interviews with police, Defendant never told police that he was picked up or near Dunkin' Donuts; (2) because the testimony was blatantly false and pertained to a critical component of the Commonwealth's case, it was error for the prosecutor not to correct the testimony; and (3) the error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Ware" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the motion judge committed reversible error in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search and seizure of a motor vehicle in which he was a passenger and in denying Defendant's postconviction motion for discovery of wiretap recordings of his conversations with a confidential informant.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) Defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted because Defendant was subjected to an illegal seizure, and the evidence obtained from the subsequently impoundment and search of the vehicle was the direct result of the illegal seizure, and the error was not harmless; (2) the trial judge did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts; and (3) the motion judge properly denied Defendant's postconviction motion for a new trial but erred in denying the motion for discovery. View "Commonwealth v. Tavares" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of carrying a loaded firearm unlawfully as an armed career criminal with one predicate offense, holding that Defendant's indictment was not void and that Defendant's conviction of assault and battery could serve as a predicate offense under the Massachusetts Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10G.Defendant was indicted for several unlawful firearm offenses, and the indictments also alleged that Defendant previously had been convicted of three violent crimes and was thus subject to enhanced penalties under the ACCA. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to carrying a loaded firearm unlawfully as an armed career criminal with one predicate offense. Defendant later filed a motion to vacate the ACCA conviction and sentence for a new trial. The motion was denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) although the indictment did not set forth the alleged ACCA predicate convictions, the indictment was not void because Defendant had sufficient notice of the crimes charged; (2) Defendant's prior conviction of assault and battery qualified as a predicate offense under the ACCA; (3) counsel was not ineffective; and (4) Defendant's guilty plea on the ACCA charge was entered into intelligently and voluntarily. View "Commonwealth v. Wentworth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated and set aside a superior court judgment affirming a Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) decision to classify John Doe as a level two sex offender, holding that there was not substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner's decision to classify Doe as a level two sex offender by clear and convincing evidence.SORB classified Doe as a level two sex offender after Doe was convicted of two counts of open and gross lewdness. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) SORB had jurisdiction to classify Doe as a sex offender; (2) in order classify an individual as a level two sex offender, the hearing examiner is required to make three explicit determinations by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) in light of this three-prong test, the hearing examiner did not support her decision to classify Doe as a level two sex offender by clear and convincing evidence. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice denying Petitioner's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.While Petitioner was incarcerated in Indiana for unrelated offenses, he filed a petition for a speedy disposition of Massachusetts charges underlying this action pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Commonwealth had failed to bring him to trial within the time frame required by the IAD. A district court judge allowed the motion. Meanwhile, Petitioner had been indicted on the same charges. Petitioner moved to dismiss the charges on jurisdictional grounds. The superior court judge denied the motion. Petitioner then filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition arguing that in denying the jurisdictional motion, the superior court judge had revoked the district court judge's dismissal of the complaint. The superior court denied the IAD motion before the single justice acted on the Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. Thereafter, the single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err in denying relief. View "Ghebrehiwet v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law