Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The decision in Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co. applies in any case where the issue was timely and fairly asserted in the trial court or on appeal before July 17, 2015. In Pinti, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a foreclosure by statutory power of sale is invalid unless the notice of default strictly complies with paragraph 22 of the standard mortgage. The court concluded that this decision should be given prospective effect only but left open the question of whether the holding should be applied to any case pending in the trial court or on appeal. In reaching that question in this case, the court concluded that Defendants timely and fairly raised this issue in the housing court before July 17, 2015. The court affirmed the judge’s ruling declaring the foreclosure sale in this case void because the notice of default did not strictly comply with the requirements in paragraph 22 of the mortgage. View "Federal National Mortgage Ass’n v. Marroquin" on Justia Law

In 1983, Defendant was convicted of one count of arson in a dwelling house and eight counts of murder in the second degree. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, asserting newly discovered evidence regarding the conditions under which he confessed to the crime and recent fire research. A superior court judge allowed the motion, concluding that the newly discovered evidence cast real doubt on the justice of Defendant’s convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, but on different grounds, holding that, under the totality of the judge’s findings and the confluence-of-factors analysis developed subsequent to her decision in this case, the judge did not abuse her discretion in concluding that justice was not done in this case. View "Commonwealth v. Rosario" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court clarified the application of the Florida v. Jardines warrant requirement to a search in a multifamily home. The Court held (1) the side yard of Defendant’s multifamily home in this case was a “constitutionally protected area," and law enforcement’s intrusion into that area to search for a weapon implicated the constitutional warrant requirement; and (2) the superior court properly allowed Defendants’ motions to suppress the loaded sawed-off shotgun found under the porch because the warrantless intrusion here was an unlawful physical intrusion into the curtilage of the residence, therefore violating the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. View "Commonwealth v. Leslie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court interpreted one provision in the habitual criminal statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 279, 25(a), which provides for an enhanced penalty where a defendant has two prior convictions resulting in prison sentences of three or more years, to require that the underlying convictions arise from separate incidents or episodes of criminal behavior. In so holding, the Court affirmed the superior court order dismissing the habitual offender portions of the indictments currently pending against Defendant, holding that the Commonwealth failed to provide the grand jury with sufficient evidence to support the habitual offender portions of the indictments. View "Commonwealth v. Garvey" on Justia Law

A jury found Earl T. Fulgiam and Michael T. Corbin guilty as joint venturers of murder in the first degree of Kevin Thomas, Jr. and Billie Marie Kee. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and declined to grant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting certain cellular telephone records; (2) the admission of fingerprint cards attributed to Defendants did not violate Defendants’ right to confront witnesses against them; (3) the trial judge did not err in admitting a fingerprint analyst’s testimony related to the fingerprint analysis; and (4) the prosecutor permissibly inferred that a “team” of men committed the murders. View "Commonwealth v. Fulgiam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and deliberate premeditation, holding that there was no error in this case warranting reversal, nor was there any reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the verdict or order a new trial. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress a statement Defendant made to police; (2) the evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant were unavailing; (3) there was no prejudicial error in the jury instructions; (4) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to dismiss several jurors for cause; (5) any potential prejudice to Defendant from the prosecutor’s closing argument was mitigated by a comprehensive limiting instruction; and (6) Defendant’s mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is constitutional. View "Commonwealth v. Colton" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the denial of his petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 after the Housing Court entered judgment in Respondent’s favor in a summary process action. Petitioner filed a motion to waive the appeal bond, which was allowed. Respondent appealed. A single justice held a hearing on the matter and remanded the matter to the Housing Court for a determination of the amount of use and occupancy installment payments Petitioner should make to Respondent while his appeal was pending. Petitioner appealed, but a single justice determined that there was no right of appeal under the circumstances. Petitioner then filed a document that the single justice treated as a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition and denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice acted within her discretion in denying the petition under the circumstances. View "Pare v. Harmony House, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the denial of two Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petitions he filed related to ongoing trial court proceedings. The subject petitions were the fourth and fifth such petitions Appellant had filed in the county court seeking extraordinary relief from interlocutory trial courts rulings or otherwise related to ongoing trial court proceedings. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments and placed Appellant on notice that any subsequent attempt to seek relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, where Appellant has an adequate alternative remedy or fails to comply with S.J.C. Rule 2:21, may result in restriction of future filings or other action by the Court. View "Afrasiabi v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition seeking interlocutory relief from an order of the superior court temporarily committing him to the Massachusetts Treatment Center pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, 12(e) pending a probable cause determination on the Commonwealth’s petition for Appellant’s civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person. A single justice denied relief on the ground that Appellant had an adequate remedy in the ordinary appellate process. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that all of Appellant’s arguments as to the merits of his petition could be raised on appeal from an adverse final judgment in this matter. View "Schumacher v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Following a series of disciplinary reprimands and suspensions for misconduct, Plaintiff was removed from her positions as an assistant clerk-magistrate of the Salem Division of the District Court Department. Plaintiff brought this action challenging her removal, arguing that the decision to remove her exceeded the clerk-magistrate’s statutory authority, was arbitrary or capricious, and violated her due process rights. The superior court upheld the removal decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that it was appropriate for the clerk-magistrate to factor in the whole of Plaintiff’s disciplinary record in terminating her, and therefore, the clerk-magistrate’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, due process was satisfied, and Plaintiff demonstrated no deviation from the governing statute or rules. View "Perullo v. Advisory Committee on Personnel Standards" on Justia Law