Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue was the lawfulness of allowing a hospital to transfer a patient involuntarily to a skilled nursing facility in the absence of a guardianship. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a guardian over an incapacitated person is necessary, but not by itself sufficient, to admit an incapacitated person to a nursing facility against his or her will, because such an admission requires an additional order by the court based on a specific finding that the admission is in the incapacitated person’s best interest.Specifically, the Court held that when a hospital patient refuses to consent to be transferred to a nursing facility, a judge may order the patient to be admitted to a nursing facility under the Massachusetts Uniform Probate Code only if the judge (1) finds the patient to be an incapacitated person; (2) makes the other findings necessary to appoint a guardian under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, 5-306(b); and (3) then grants the guardian specific authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 190B, 5-309(g) to admit the incapacitated person to a nursing facility after finding that such admission is in the incapacitated person’s best interest. View "In re Guardianship of D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s motion for a new trial and remanded this case for an evidentiary hearing, holding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary under the circumstances of this case.Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by pursuing an impracticable third-party culprit defense rather than defenses based on Defendant’s mental health or intoxication. The motion judge denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary in order to determine whether trial counsel’s strategy was reasonable in light of Defendant’s particular mental health history. View "Commonwealth v. Velez" on Justia Law

The independent contractor statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B, does not determine whether a claimant is an employee for the purpose of workers’ compensation benefits under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152.Claimant sought review of a decision by the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents affirming the findings of an administrative judge concluding that the claimant was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation. The Supreme Court held (1) the reviewing board properly applied the workers’ compensation statute’s definition of employee to determine whether the claimant in this case was an employee under chapter 152; and (2) therefore, the claimant was properly classified as an independent contractor for workers’ compensation purposes. View "Camargo's Case" on Justia Law

The independent contractor statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148B, does not determine whether a claimant is an employee for the purpose of workers’ compensation benefits under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 152.Claimant sought review of a decision by the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents affirming the findings of an administrative judge concluding that the claimant was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to workers’ compensation. The Supreme Court held (1) the reviewing board properly applied the workers’ compensation statute’s definition of employee to determine whether the claimant in this case was an employee under chapter 152; and (2) therefore, the claimant was properly classified as an independent contractor for workers’ compensation purposes. View "Camargo's Case" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge granting Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding that the judge did not err in concluding that an affidavit by a deceased affiant was admissible and was newly discovered evidence that cast real doubt on the justice of Defendant’s convictions.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The Commonwealth’s case against Defendant depended largely upon the testimony of James Jackson. Later, Debra Bell stated in an affidavit that Jackson could not have witnessed the shooting because he was in the bathroom with her at the relevant time. Bell died shortly after providing the affidavit. Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the affidavit was newly discovered evidence, but the trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Court remanded the case for a hearing to determine whether Bell’s affidavit fell within the exception to the hearsay rule that applies where otherwise inadmissible hearsay is critical to the defense and bears persuasive guarantees of trustworthiness. On remand, a different judge determined that the affidavit fell within the exception and granted the motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the motion judge did not err in allowing Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Drayton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder and armed robbery and declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. The Court held (1) the trial judge violated Defendant’s right to confront witnesses by allowing the jury to be exposed to certain hearsay, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial judge erred by allowing a substitute expert witnesses to testify to a match between the defendant's DNA profile and one obtained from the victim's clothing, but the error did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective; and (4) government officials did not commit unconstitutional misconduct in the course of investigating and prosecuting Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Seino" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder and armed robbery and declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. The Court held (1) the trial judge violated Defendant’s right to confront witnesses by allowing the jury to be exposed to certain hearsay, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial judge erred by allowing a substitute expert witnesses to testify to a match between the defendant's DNA profile and one obtained from the victim's clothing, but the error did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective; and (4) government officials did not commit unconstitutional misconduct in the course of investigating and prosecuting Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Seino" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the motion judge allowing summary judgment for Defendants, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and individuals associated with MIT, in this wrongful death action arising out of the suicide of Plaintiff’s son.Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that Defendants’ negligence caused the death of his son, who was a student at MIT. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was allowed, and Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment was denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) in certain circumstances not present in this case, a special relationship and a corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent suicide may be created by a university and its student; but (2) here, the superior court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants on the tort claims as a matter of law and properly denied summary judgment on the workers’ compensation claim. View "Nguyen v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology" on Justia Law

At issue was the proper construction of the termination for convenience clause in a contract between the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. (Prime).The Supreme Judicial court held (1) a State or municipal entity may terminate a procurement contract for its convenience in order to achieve costs savings where, as in this case, the contractual language permits and in the absence of contrary applicable law; and (2) the superior court judge erred in denying MBTA’s motion to dismiss Prime’s complaint on the ground that a public entity may not invoke a termination for convenience clause in a State or municipal public procurement contract in order to secure a lower price. View "A.L. Prime Energy Consultant, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the adjudication of delinquency as to a juvenile offender under the age of sixteen, holding that, as applied in these circumstances where the juvenile maintained that he was involved in consensual experimentation with another child, enforcement of the statutory rape charge was constitutional.At the time of the alleged offenses, the juvenile was twelve years old and the victim was eight years old. A jury found the juvenile delinquent of statutory rape. On appeal, the juvenile argued that the imposition of criminal liability on a child for a strict liability offense was fundamentally unfair. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the juvenile’s arguments were unable to overcome the presumption that the Legislature acted reasonably and rationally in imposing strict liability for anyone who has sexual intercourse with a child under the age of sixteen. View "Commonwealth v. Wilbur W." on Justia Law