Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In setting the amount of bail for a defendant, a judge must consider the defendant’s financial resources but is not required to set bail in an amount the defendant can afford if other relevant considerations weigh more heavily than the defendant’s ability to prove the necessary security for his appearance at trial.In this case, Petitioner had been held in jail for more than three and one-half years because he had been unable to post bail in the amounts ordered by a superior court judge following his arrest and indictment for armed robbery while masked. Petitioner petitioned for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. A single justice denied the petition. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the superior court’s bail order violated his right to due process because the judge failed to give adequate consideration to his financial resources. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the judge did not consider Petitioner’s financial resources in setting the bail. The court remanded the matter with directions that the superior court judge conduct a new bail hearing for Petitioner in accord with the standards set forth in this opinion. View "Brangan v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Where a juvenile is sentenced for nonmurder offenses and the aggregate time to be served prior to parole eligibility exceeds that applicable to a juvenile convicted of murder, the sentence cannot be reconciled with article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights unless, after a hearing on the factors articulated in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the judgment makes a finding that the circumstances warrant treating the juvenile more harshly for parole purposes than a juvenile convicted of murder.Defendant was seventeen years old when he committed the offenses leading to his convictions for armed robbery, armed assault with intent to rob, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and related firearms offenses. The judge sentenced Defendant to an aggregate sentence of thirty-two and one-half years, with parole eligibility after twenty-seven and one-half years. Defendant later filed a motion for resentencing, arguing that the aggregate sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and the cognate provision of article 26. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter for a Miller hearing to determine whether Defendant’s sentence comported with the requirements of article 26. If not, then Defendant must be resentenced. View "Commonwealth v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder in the first degree and declined to grant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. The court held (1) the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction; (2) the judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting gang opinion testimony; (3) the prosecutor’s opening statement and closing argument were proper; (4) the judge did not allow inadmissible statements that unfairly bolstered the Commonwealth’s theory of gang retaliation or improper interpretive testimony from the lead homicide detective; (5) Defendant’s assertion that trial counsel was ineffective was unavailing; and (6) Defendant’s argument that the motion judge erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss indictments because the Commonwealth failed to establish probable cause to believe that Defendant committed the victim’s murder had no merit. View "Commonwealth v. Barbosa" on Justia Law

A defendant charged with murder is not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction when the defendant cannot be convicted of the offense of manslaughter due to the statute of limitations. The defendant, however, may elect to waive the statute of limitations and invoke his or her right to the lesser included offense instruction of manslaughter.The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree, as a participant in a joint venture. The trial judge reduced the murder conviction to murder in the second degree on Defendant’s motion. Defendant would have been entitled to a manslaughter instruction had the limitations period not run. During his trial, Defendant requested that the judge instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The trial judge gave Defendant the choice to waive the statute of limitations to invoke his right to the lesser included offense instruction, but Defendant declined to waive his statute of limitations defense. Therefore, the judge did not instruct the jury on manslaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge correctly allowed Defendant to choose between asserting the statute of limitations defense or his right to a manslaughter instruction. View "Commonwealth v. Shelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial. Following a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, subsequent offense, and indecent assault and battery on a person age fourteen or older. In his motion for a new trial, Defendant argued that his jury waiver was neither knowing nor negligent and that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective because neither the trial judge nor counsel disclosed that the judge’s son was employed as an assistant district attorney in the office of the district attorney for the district that prosecuted the indictments. The Supreme Judicial held (1) the trial judge’s failure to inform Defendant of his familial relationship with a member of the prosecuting attorney’s office during the jury-waiver colloquy was not error; and (2) although counsel’s failure to inform Defendant of the judge’s familial relationship with a member of the prosecuting attorney’s office fell below behavior that might be expected from an ordinary lawyer, counsel’s failure to do so was not prejudicial. View "Commonwealth v. Duart" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for murder in the first degree on the theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony murder with home invasion and armed burglary, assault on occupant as the predicate felonies, and declined to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. The court held (1) there was no error in the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made during an interview with the police; (2) there was no prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony from various witnesses; (3) the trial judge erred in denying Defendant’s request for a DiGiambattista instruction where a portion of Defendant’s interview with the police was not audio recored, but the error was not prejudicial; (4) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial following the jury’s exposure to inadmissible evidence; and (5) a statement made in the prosecutor’s closing argument was impermissible, but no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice arose from the statement. View "Commonwealth v. Santana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed Defendant’s convictions for three counts of aggravated rape of a child. Among the issues raised on appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in interpreting the first complaint rule to require the disclosure of the perpetrator’s identity to the first complaint witness and allowing a law enforcement officer to testify as the first complaint witness. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the admission of the officer’s testimony as first complaint evidence was in error because the essential feature of first complaint evidence is the report of a sexual assault, not the identity of the perpetrator, and the error was prejudicial; (2) the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant’s testimony as to her multiple disclosures of the sexual assault; and (3) the trial judge erred in excluding Defendant’s proffered expert testimony in support of her defense based on battered woman syndrome because a defendant asserting duress based on battered woman syndrome is not required to present affirmative evidence of abuse as a predicate to the defense. View "Commonwealth v. Asenjo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s convictions for carrying firearm without a license and receiving stolen property valued over $250. The convictions arose from a search of Defendant’s backpack after he was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and breaking and entering a residence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress images discovered as the result of the warrantless search of a digital camera discovered in his backpack and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of receiving stolen property valued over $250. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the warrantless search of the digital camera was neither a valid search incident to arrest nor a valid inventory search, and therefore, the trial judge erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain Defendant’s remaining conviction, but a conviction of the lesser included offense must stand. View "Commonwealth v. Mauricio" on Justia Law

An order granting the specific performance of a plea agreement constituted error.Pursuant to a plea agreement reached in 1994, Defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree in exchange for the opportunity to immediately seek parole. Defense counsel represented that the Commonwealth promised Defendant that he would not have to be in custody for the parole board to conduct a parole hearing, but several attempts at holding a parole hearing were unsuccessful. Defendant was eventually allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant was then retried on the original indictment and convicted of murder in the first degree. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial. Although the judge found Defendant’s arguments were without merit, the judge ordered specific performance of the 1994 plea agreement and allowed Defendant to plead guilty to murder in the second degree. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the grant of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding that the judge in 2013 abused her direction in deciding to enforce the 1994 plea agreement because the prosecutor did not make an enforceable promise to Defendant that he need not be in custody for the parole hearing. View "Commonwealth v. Francis" on Justia Law

In this case concerning the distribution of natural gas to consumers, the Supreme Judicial Court accepted the conclusion of the Department of Public Utilities that only an end consumer, and not a marketer - or a private company - is entitled to a refund under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 164, 94F. Specifically at issue was whether the assignment of pipeline capacity by a local distribution company (LDC) to a marketer caused the marketer to become a customer of the LDC such that it was entitled a share of that refund. Here, a pipeline was ordered by FERC to issue a refund. Because Bay State, an LDC, was the contracting party with the pipeline, Bay State received the full refund. The Department ordered Bay State to issue a refund to its customers, which it did. Energy Express, a marketer, intervened, arguing that it should receive a proportional share of the refund directly. The Department rejected Energy Express’s position. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the Department reasonably interpreted “customer” as used in section 94F to include only those entitles that consume the natural gas provided or transported by Bay State, which interpretation did not include Energy Express; and (2) therefore, Energy Express was not entitled to a refund. View "Energy Express, Inc. v. Department of Public Utilities" on Justia Law