Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, murder in the second degree, armed assault with intent to murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of deliberately premeditated murder and of armed assault with intent to murder. Defendant also challenged two jury instructions and claimed improper direct examination and closing argument by the trial prosecutor. The court affirmed defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and declined to exercise its power to grant relief under G.L.c. 278, section 33E. The court affirmed the conviction of murder in the second degree. Because the court concluded that the omission of a jury instruction regarding defendant's knowledge that a codefendant was armed created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, the court reversed defendant's conviction of armed assault with intent to murder. Finally, the court affirmed defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm. View "Commonwealth v. Bolling" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an attorney, submitted an affidavit of resignation pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 4:01, section 15, and his resignation was thereafter accepted as a disciplinary sanction. At issue was whether an attorney, whose resignation from the practice of law was accepted as a disciplinary sanction, could now work, either for pay or on a volunteer basis, as a mediator. The court concluded that, although mediation did not in all circumstances constitute the practice of law, an attorney who had resigned from the practice of law while the subject of disciplinary investigation, or who had been disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, could be prohibited from serving as a mediator when to do so would be perceived by the public as an extension of the attorney's practice of law, or when the conduct of the mediation was so closely related to the practice of law as to constitute legal work. View "In the Matter of Bott" on Justia Law

This case concerned the mechanics of NSTAR's, an electric distribution company, attempt to shift the recovery of one of it supply-related costs, supply-related bad debt costs, from its distribution rates to its supply rates. NSTAR filed a petition, through which it sought to begin recovery of its supply-related bad debt costs through its supply rates rather than, as before, through its distribution rates. Not withstanding that contention, the department conditioned its approval of NSTAR's petition on a corresponding reduction in NSTAR's distribution rates. The court concluded that the department had failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons for imposing the condition. Specifically, the court was unable to determine whether this aspect of the department's order rested on a determination that NSTAR did not follow the correct procedural path in removing supply-related bad debt costs from its distribution rates, or rather on a determination that NSTAR did not in fact remove such costs from its distribution rates at all. The court concluded further that certain of the department's factual determinations were not adequately supported by subsidiary findings and that an aspect of the department's analysis was legally erroneous. Accordingly, the department's order was to be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "NSTAR Electric Co. vs. Dept. of Public Utilities" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned six indictments charging defendant with rape of a child under the age of sixteen by force. At defendant's first trial, the trial judge entered a required finding of not guilty on one of the indictments. The jury returned guilty verdicts on the remaining indictments. However, almost a year later, the judge allowed defendant's motion for a new trial. The case proceeded to a new trial on the remaining five indictments and defendant was subsequently convicted of all charges. On appeal, defendant argued that he was convicted of crimes for which he was not indicted; error in the admission of first complaint testimony; error by the judge's restriction of cross-examination of one of the victims and refusal to grant a mistrial; and error in the admission of bad act evidence. The court transferred the case on its own motion and subsequently affirmed the convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Roby" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with committing an assault and battery on a child under fourteen years of age causing substantial bodily injury and wantonly and recklessly permitting an assault and battery on a child that caused substantial bodily injury. At defense counsel's request and with the Commonwealth's agreement, the judge instructed the jury that they could consider whether defendant recklessly endangered her child. The jury acquitted defendant of the offenses charged in the indictments but found her guilty of the lesser included offense of reckless endangerment. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the conviction, claiming that the crime of reckless endangerment of a child was not a lesser included offense and the jury instruction to the contrary that her counsel had requested should not have been given. The court concluded that, although erroneously charged, the lesser included offense instruction created no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The court also held that the judge did not abuse his discretion by allowing admission of the expert testimony at issue. View "Commonwealth v. Roderiques" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiff's suit against the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) where plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident with a bus operated by a MBTA employee. Effective November 1, 2009, the amendments to the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L.c. 258, sections 1-14, and the MBTA's enabling statute, G.L.c. 161A (collectively, 2009 amendments), made the MBTA a "public employer" covered by the Tort Claims Act, G.L.C. 258, section 1. At issue was whether the 2009 amendments applied retroactively, allowing the MBTA the protections of public employer status against a plaintiff whose claims accrued prior to November 1, 2009. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments did not so apply. Accordingly, plaintiff was not precluded from recovering prejudgment interest and costs of postjudgment interest against the MBTA that accrued prior to November 1, 2009. View "Smith v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of 23 out of 32 charges stemming from his participation in a string of robberies. On appeal, defendant argued that he was unduly prejudiced by the joinder of the charged offenses in a single trial, and that inculpatory evidence that was discovered in a search of his bags violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and therefore should not have been admitted. The court concluded that the charges were joined properly for a single trial, but that the challenged evidence should have been suppressed. Accordingly, the convictions that relied on that evidence must be reversed. View "Commonwealth v. Magri" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint against Safety, which alleged that Safety improperly denied coverage under her homeowner's insurance policy for damage to her house. The court concluded that plaintiff satisfied her initial burden of proving that her claimed loss fell within the coverage of her homeowner's insurance policy. Safety then satisfied its burden of showing that the exclusion for damage caused directly or indirectly by surface water was applicable to plaintiff's claim. In light of the anticoncurrent cause provision in the exclusions section of plaintiff's policy, where the excluded peril was a direct or indirect cause of the damage to plaintiff's home, Safety was not obligated to provide insurance coverage "regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss." Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of Safety's motion for summary judgment. View "Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged in separate complaints with distribution of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Defendant moved to suppress statements to police following his arrest on the drug charges and when the motion to suppress was scheduled to be heard, defendant orally moved to exclude the recorded statement at issue because of the Commonwealth's failure to provide an English-language transcript. The Commonwealth contended that its only obligation in discovery was to provide defendant with a Spanish-language audio recording of the interrogation. The court held that where the Commonwealth contended in its case-in-chief to offer at trial statements made by a defendant in a foreign language in a tape-recorded interview, it was within the judge's discretion to require the Commonwealth to provide defense counsel in advance of trial with an English-language transcript for the interview, and to exclude the statements where the Commonwealth declined to do so. Therefore, the court concluded that the judge did not abuse her discretion in declaring that the Commonwealth could not admit in evidence defendant's statements of the interrogation while refusing to provide defense counsel with a translated transcript of the Spanish-language recording. The court vacated the judge's order of exclusion so the Commonwealth could be given the opportunity to decide whether to promptly prepare and provide a translated transcript and remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Portillo" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed from an order entered in the Superior Court suppressing drugs seized from between defendant's buttocks pursuant to a search incident to his arrest following a lawful automobile stop. During the search of defendant, defendant's buttocks were exposed to public view. Because the court concluded that the search of defendant that took place when the police retrieved drugs from between defendant's buttocks constituted an unreasonable strip search on account of the location of the search and the manner in which it was conducted, the court affirmed the suppression order. View "Commonwealth v. Morales" on Justia Law