Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant, Rigoberto Escobar, was found guilty of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Magno Sosa after a heated argument that escalated into a fistfight. The defendant appealed, arguing that his confession to police was improperly obtained because he was improperly Mirandized, coerced into confessing, and his rights to prompt arraignment and telephone use after arrest were violated. Moreover, the defendant contended that the trial judge made errors by denying his motion for a mistrial and failing to instruct the jury on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. He also claimed that improper testimony by the Commonwealth's experts on fingerprint identification and forensic ballistics led to a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Lastly, the defendant argued that his firearm convictions should be vacated according to a recent ruling in Commonwealth v. Guardado.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree. They concluded that the defendant's motion to suppress his confession was properly denied, his motion for a mistrial was rightly denied, and the trial judge did not err in declining to provide a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. However, the trial judge did err in declining to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Despite this, they found the defendant was not prejudiced by this decision due to the jury instructions as a whole and the lack of evidence supporting a finding of voluntary manslaughter.The court also affirmed that even if the expert testimony was improper, it did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice because the Commonwealth presented overwhelming evidence tying the defendant to the firearm and to the crime. However, the court vacated the defendant's firearm convictions and remanded for a new trial to give the Commonwealth the opportunity to prove that the defendant was not licensed to carry a firearm. View "Commonwealth v. Escobar" on Justia Law

This case involved defendant Julie A. Corey who was convicted of first-degree murder on the grounds of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder with the underlying felony of aggravated kidnapping. Following her conviction, Corey filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that she received ineffective assistance of counsel due to her attorney's failure to call a cell phone expert to testify about her location on the night of the murder. She also requested that the court enter a required finding of not guilty. The trial judge, who was also the motion judge, denied Corey's motion for a new trial but vacated her conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder, finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Corey committed the predicate felony of aggravated kidnapping.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with Corey’s argument that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that her trial counsel's decision not to call a cell phone expert was not ineffective and would not have likely influenced the jury's conclusions. Furthermore, the court agreed with the Commonwealth that there was sufficient evidence to find Corey guilty of felony-murder with a predicate felony of aggravated kidnapping. Consequently, the court reinstated that conviction. The court also declined to exercise its powers under G. L. c. 278, § 33E to reduce Corey's conviction. View "Commonwealth v. Corey" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant convicted of severe, racially motivated violence, who sought to stay the execution of his sentence pending appeal. The defendant, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Morocco, with frequent travel to Morocco, was deemed a flight risk and a danger to others by the trial judge and a single justice of the Appeals Court. While the defendant demonstrated a likelihood of success on his appeal, the single justice upheld the trial judge's decision, citing the defendant's regular travels abroad, the serious nature of his crimes, and the significant sentence he faced as reasons for his potential flight risk. Following the denial of his stay, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the defendant's likelihood of success on appeal did not mitigate the identified security risk. The court ruled that the likelihood of success on appeal and the potential security risk are two distinct factors to consider, and one does not influence the other. The court concluded that the single justice's decision was not outside the range of reasonable alternatives, thus not an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the denial of the defendant's motion to stay his sentence pending appeal. View "Commonwealth v. Kalila" on Justia Law

In the case of Commonwealth v. Rashad Shepherd, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, with attempted unarmed robbery as the predicate felony. The case centered around a failed robbery attempt that ended in the shooting and death of the intended victim. The defendant, along with two co-conspirators, hatched a plan to rob the victim, who was known to sell marijuana from his apartment. However, when the plan was put into motion, the victim resisted, and in the ensuing altercation, was shot and killed. The prosecution's theory was that the defendant was the shooter.In his appeal, the defendant argued that the court’s decision in a prior case, Commonwealth v. Brown, which abolished felony-murder as an independent theory of liability for murder in the first and second degrees, should be applied to his case retroactively. He maintained that not doing so violated equal protection principles as more Black individuals were serving life sentences without parole for felony-murder than white individuals. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the decision in Brown was applied to all equally, regardless of race or ethnicity.The defendant also claimed errors in jury instructions and conduct by the trial judge, but the court determined that there was no reversible error. Lastly, the defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but the court found that the decisions by the defense were not manifestly unreasonable. View "Commonwealth v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

In the case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the defendant, William J. Camuti, was convicted of murder in the first degree for poisoning his friend and business associate, Stephen Rakes, with potassium cyanide. Several years after his conviction, Camuti filed a postconviction motion for forensic testing of the shirt that Rakes was wearing when his body was found, claiming that DNA testing of the shirt could potentially provide evidence that could exonerate him. However, a Superior Court judge denied the motion, finding that Camuti had failed to meet his burden under G. L. c. 278A, § 7 (b), to demonstrate that a reasonably effective defense attorney would have sought to test Rakes' shirt for DNA.On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the lower court's decision. The court reasoned that the absence of trace evidence, including DNA evidence, was a central part of Camuti's defense strategy at trial. His counsel had repeatedly emphasized the lack of physical evidence linking Camuti to the crime scene, and the introduction of DNA evidence from Rakes' shirt could have undermined this defense. The court further noted that even if DNA testing had revealed the presence of a third party's DNA on the shirt, this would have had minimal exculpatory value given the circumstances of the case. Given these considerations, the court concluded that a reasonably effective attorney would not have sought DNA testing of Rakes' shirt. Therefore, Camuti had not met his burden under G. L. c. 278A, § 7 (b), and the denial of his postconviction motion for forensic testing was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Camuti" on Justia Law

The case involves the Commonwealth's appeal against the trial judge's denial of its motion to admit expert testimony on Frequent Location History (FLH) data retrieved from the defendant's cell phone in a murder case. The Commonwealth argued that the FLH data would corroborate its witness's testimony, placing the defendant at the crime scene. The trial judge denied the motion, stating that the Commonwealth had not met its burden of showing that FLH data had been generally accepted as reliable by the scientific community. The judge also found that the Commonwealth had failed to provide evidence that FLH data has been subjected to peer review or publication, has an unacceptably high known or potential rate of error, and is governed by recognized standards. The Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk agreed with the trial judge's decision, concluding that the Commonwealth had not shown that FLH data is reliable. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial judge's denial of the Commonwealth's motion to admit the FLH data. View "Commonwealth v. Arrington" on Justia Law

In 1995, the bodies of a woman and her daughter were found in separate locations in Massachusetts and Connecticut. More than two decades later, the woman's husband was convicted for her murder. On appeal, he asserted that the evidence was insufficient to establish his identity and deliberate premeditation, and challenged the admissibility of his daughter's murder evidence, the testimony of two latent print examiners, and the limitation on introducing a potential third-party culprit.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the conviction. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's decisions and determined that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the husband was the perpetrator and committed the crime with deliberate premeditation. The court also ruled that the evidence of the daughter's murder was admissible to establish the identity of the perpetrator of the mother's murder. The court also found no issues with the testimony of the latent print examiners and did not find any unfair limitations on the defendant's ability to present evidence of a potential third-party culprit. Furthermore, the court ruled that the defendant's rights to confront witnesses were not violated by the testimony of the latent print examiners. Lastly, the court deemed that the defendant's argument on the degree of certainty expressed by the latent print examiners was unpreserved, and the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Honsch" on Justia Law

The case concerns the constitutional rights of a criminal defendant, A.Z., who was involuntarily hospitalized for a competency determination under Massachusetts law, G. L. c. 123, § 15 (b). The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the involuntary commitment of a criminal defendant for a competency determination infringes upon a defendant's fundamental right to liberty and thus must satisfy strict scrutiny under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the United States Constitution. To pass strict scrutiny, the involuntary commitment must be the least restrictive means available to vindicate the governmental interest at stake. Therefore, it is unconstitutional for a court to hospitalize a pretrial defendant for a clinical evaluation and observation of competency, absent a finding by the judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that hospitalization is the least restrictive means available to adequately determine a criminal defendant's competency to stand trial. The judge in this case did not make such findings, so the court concluded that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated. View "Commonwealth v. A.Z." on Justia Law

In 1982, William F. McDermott was convicted of first-degree murder. On direct review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the trial judge had erred in failing to instruct the jury that evidence of intoxication could be considered in determining whether McDermott acted with extreme atrocity or cruelty to support a verdict of first-degree murder. Instead of ordering a new trial, the court reduced the verdict to murder in the second degree.In 2020, McDermott filed a motion for a new trial, claiming prosecutorial misconduct, improper jury instruction, and arguing that his sentence of life with the possibility of parole was unconstitutional. The Supreme Judicial Court found that while the prosecutor had engaged in misconduct, the errors did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court also held that McDermott's challenges to the jury instructions were estopped by prior postconviction rulings, and that his sentence was not unconstitutional.The court affirmed the denial of McDermott's motion for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. McDermott" on Justia Law

In this case, six plaintiffs -- two criminal defense organizations, two defense attorneys, and two former criminal defendants -- filed a petition against the District Attorney's Office for the Hampden District in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged multiple failures by the District Attorney's Office, primarily stemming from its handling of evidence of misconduct within the Springfield Police Department (the department). The U.S. Department of Justice had previously conducted an investigation and found that officers in the department, particularly those within the narcotics bureau, routinely falsified police reports and engaged in a pattern of excessive force.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts found that the District Attorney's Office, through certain discovery policies, committed a breach of both the duty to disclose evidence that tends to exculpate defendants and the duty to investigate or inquire about such evidence. Specifically, the court identified three problematic practices: 1) disclosing adverse credibility findings made about the department's officers only on a discretionary basis; 2) withholding instances of officer misconduct from disclosure where a specific bad act cannot be clearly attributed to a particular officer; and 3) failing to gain access to all documents known to have been reviewed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).To rectify these breaches, the court ordered the District Attorney's Office to obtain access to all categories of documents known to have been reviewed by the DOJ and disclose them to the plaintiffs. From there, case-by-case adjudication can begin to address the claims of individual defendants affected by the department's misconduct. In issuing this order, the court emphasized the importance of a prosecutor's dual duties -- to disclose and to investigate -- in upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system. View "Graham v. District Attorney for the Hampden District" on Justia Law