Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The juvenile was charged with delinquency by reason of armed robbery. He was identified as the robber by means of a photograph that the police had obtained from his public high school and claimed to have included in a photographic array shown to the alleged victim. The juvenile moved to suppress the identification. Without evidence of how the student identification cards and photographs were created and how and by whom they were used within and outside of the school, the court was not in a position to review the judge's conclusion that the juvenile had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the photograph and the legal consequences that followed from such a conclusion. Consequently, the court vacated the judge's allowance of the motion to suppress and remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Zachary Z., a juvenile" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. Defendant was also convicted of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and extortion. On appeal, defendant argued that the judge erred both in rejecting his exercise of a peremptory challenge of a member of the venire during jury empanelment and in improperly providing a limiting instruction as to the use of prior inconsistent statements elicited on cross-examination of one of the Commonwealth's key witnesses. The court concluded that there was no merit in defendant's first claim of error. As to the second claim of error, even if it were assumed, without deciding, that the limiting instruction should not have been given, this did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Thus, the court affirmed the convictions and declined to exercise its power under G.L.c. 278, section 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Prunty" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a private college, brought suit against a town and a local zoning authority (defendants), seeking, among other things, a declaration that its proposed development of residential and education facilities for older adults (Regis East) qualified for protection under the Dover Amendment, G.L.c. 40A, section 3, second par. The Dover Amendment exempted from certain local zoning laws or structures that were to be used by nonprofit educational institutions for "educational purposes." Because the court could not conclude that plaintiff "has no reasonable expectation" of demonstrating that Regis East would primarily operate in furtherance of educational purposes, the court vacated and remanded. View "Regis College v. Town of Weston & others." on Justia Law

Defendant was ordered to testify at a murder trial on two separate occasions, May 10 and 12 of 2010, and on both occasions, the judge held him in contempt of court. When the trial was over, defendant was returned to court and, finding that his refusal to testify merited punishment in excess of three months, the judge referred the matter for prosecution pursuant to rule 44. Defendant subsequently was indicted for nonsummary criminal contempt. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy, claiming that at the May 12 proceeding he already had been adjudged in summary contempt, thus barring his subsequent prosecution for nonsummary contempt. The court held that, because defendant was not convicted of summary contempt on May 12, jeopardy, if it applied, never terminated. The case was remanded to county court for entry of judgment denying defendant's petition. View "Vizcaino v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on multiple felony counts arising out of a series of arson fires. On appeal, defendant contended that incriminatory statements he made in the course of nearly ten hours of police interrogation were obtained in violation of his right to counsel and that certain tactics employed by his interrogators were sufficiently misleading or coercive so as to render his statements involuntary. The court held that the troopers' misrepresentations, in combination with the troopers' attempts to persuade defendant not to obtain the advice of counsel on whether to exercise his right to remain silent, constituted an affirmative interference with defendant's understanding of his fundamental constitutional rights. On the record before the court, the Commonwealth had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's statements were nevertheless freely and voluntarily made. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Baye" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty from a complaint for criminal harassment issued against him in the district court, alleging that he wilfully and maliciously engaged in a knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts in violation of G.L.c. 265, section 43A(a). On appellate review, the court agreed with defendant that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to establish each element of the crime of criminal harassment where, among other things, there was no evidence that defendant's attention or interest was particularly focused on the complainant and that he intended that she be aware of his attention, or that he otherwise harbored any wrongful or unlawful motive. View "Commonwealth v. McDonald" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the registrar of motor vehicles' suspension of plaintiff's driver's license for three years on his refusal to take a breathalyzer test. At issue was the interpretation of the word "convicted" in G.L.c. 90, section 24(1)(f)(1), a statute providing for the suspension of a driver's license for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test on arrest for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The court concluded that as used in the statute, "convicted" referenced only dispositions of criminal charges that included a determination of guilt. Accordingly, the registrar was not authorized to suspend plaintiff's driver's license for more than 180 days on account of his refusal to take the test because plaintiff had not previously been convicted of a violation of G.L.c. 90, section 24. View "Souza v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles & another" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth appealed from orders of a judge in the Juvenile Court dismissing two youthful offender indictments charging the juvenile with statutory rape. The juvenile has Asperger's Syndrome, as does the complainant. The judge ordered the dismissal after finding that the juvenile had suffered presumptive and actual prejudice from the "Commonwealth's willful and repeated failure to comply with discovery orders." The court concluded that, while the judge erred in dismissing the indictments on the ground that there was insufficient evidence presented to the grand jury, the judge did not abuse her discretion in deciding that dismissal of the youthful offender indictments with prejudice was necessary to cure the prejudice caused to the juvenile's right to a fair trial by the prosecutor's egregious misconduct in wilfully and repeatedly violating the discovery order. View "Commonwealth v. Washington W." on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court, claiming that defendants wrongfully subjected them to a mandatory furlough plan that was ordered by the Governor. A superior Court judge allowed defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs appealed and the court transferred the case on its own motion. Because the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to offer a valid statutory basis to challenge the implementation of the furlough plan, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Massachusetts State Police Commissioned Officers Assoc. & others v. Commonwealth & others" on Justia Law

The probationer was sentenced to terms of incarceration as a result of the revocation of his probation in the Superior Court. He appealed, arguing that he was denied the right to counsel at his probation violation hearing in contravention of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Appeals Court dismissed the probationer's appeal as moot because he had pleaded guilty to the charges that formed the basis for his probation revocation. The court held that the present appeal was not moot and proceeded to consider the merits of the probationer's claim. The court concluded that the probationer's right to counsel at his probation violation hearing was impaired by his own conduct, not by the judge. Accordingly, the order revoking probation was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Pena" on Justia Law