Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff engaged Defendants, a law firm and three individual attorneys, to represent him in connection with the prosecution of patents for Plaintiff’s inventions for a new screwless eyeglasses. After learning that Defendants had been simultaneously representing another client that competed with Plaintiff in the screwless eyeglass market, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging harm resulting Defendants’ failure to disclose the alleged conflict of interest. The trial judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the simultaneous representation by a law firm in the prosecution of patents for two clients competing in the same technology area for similar inventions is not a per se violation of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct; and (2) based on the facts alleged in his complaint, Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief. View "Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and declined to grant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in admitting medical records and related testimony and by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt; (2) the trial judge did not err in admitting expert testimony concerning the statistical significance of DNA evidence; (3) the trial judge did not err by admitting the victim’s T-shirt into evidence, despite a purported discovery violation by the Commonwealth; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during her opening statement or her closing argument; and (5) the trial judge properly denied Defendant’s motion for required findings of not guilty. View "Commonwealth v. Cole" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of four counts of violating an abuse prevention order. Petitioner’s direct appeal was entered in the Appeals Court and was pending there when he filed a pleading in the county court entitled “Petition to Remand Sentence for Resentencing.” In the petition, Petitioner asserted that his sentences were unduly harsh and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. A single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that a defendant is not entitled to the extraordinary intervention of the Supreme Judicial Court to vacate or change a sentence that is legal but that the defendant feels is too harsh. View "Souza v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was found guilty of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen. While Plaintiff was still incarcerated, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) recommended that Plaintiff be classified as a level three sex offender. Plaintiff challenged the recommendation. A SORB hearing officer determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff was appropriately classified as a level two offender. The superior court affirmed the level two classification. At issue before the Supreme Judicial Court was the standard of proof that the SORB must satisfy in order to classify a convicted sex offender under the provisions of the sex offender registry law. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the decision of the superior court affirming SORB’s classification of Plaintiff as a level two sex offender, holding that due process requires that a sex offender’s risk level be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Remanded for entry of an order to SORB to conduct an evidentiary hearing de novo under the heightened standard. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

In the course of their divorce proceedings, Husband and Wife signed a stipulation that they would sell the marital home. The parties were unable to agree on the details, and a judge in the Probate and Family Court appointed a special master to sell the home and to oversee the removal of personal property from it. Husband filed a petition with a single justice of the Appeals Court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, 118 seeking relief from the order appointing the special master, asserting that he was against the sale of the home. The Appeals Court justice denied the petition. Husband then filed the instant Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. A single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that relief was properly denied in this case. View "Koll v. Edelstein" on Justia Law

A petition for Defendant’s civil commitment as a sexually dangerous person was pending in the superior court. Defendant assented to a finding of probable cause and was temporarily committed for examination and diagnosis by two qualified examiners. The examiners submitted their reports, and the Commonwealth petitioned for trial. Defendant petitioned for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 from the trial judge’s denial of Defendant’s motion in limine to preclude the Commonwealth from calling certain witnesses. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant had alternative remedies available to him, the single justice did not err by denying extraordinary relief. View "Chin v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The district court issued a complaint charging Defendant with distribution of heroin and conspiracy to violate the drug laws. Prior to arraignment, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. A district court judge denied the motion, ruling that there was probable cause to issue the complaint. Defendant subsequently filed a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition seeking relief from this ruling. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s ruling did not present an exceptional circumstances warranting exercise of the Court’s extraordinary superintendence powers. View "Brea v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2012, Plaintiff filed an action alleging that Defendant had sexually abused her between 1968 and 1977, when she was a child. Until June 2014, civil actions alleging sexual abuse of a minor were governed by a three-year statute of limitations. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, 4C. Section 4C was amended effective June 2014 to extend the limitations period to thirty-five years. The superior court in this case dismissed the complaint on statute of limitations grounds. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, section 4C’s extended statute of limitations applies to Plaintiff’s case; and (2) the retroactive application is constitutional as applied to Defendant. Remanded. View "Sliney v. Previte" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree on the theory of felony-murder, with armed robbery as the underlying felony. The trial judge allowed Defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on the felony-murder conviction. At issue on appeal was whether a defendant who joins with others to commit an armed robbery may be found guilty of murder on the theory of felony-murder for the killing of his accomplice by someone resisting the armed robbery. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judge’s order allowing Defendant’s motion for a required finding of guilty on the indictment charging felony-murder in the second degree, holding that a defendant cannot be held criminally liable for the death of any person killed by someone resisting the commission of the felony. View "Commonwealth v. Tejeda" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. Defendant appealed. Defendant also filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that she was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. Defendant’s appeal was stayed pending resolution of her motion for a new trial. On the Commonwealth’s motions, the trial judge ordered that trial counsel be summonsed to testify at the hearing on Defendant’s motion and that Defendant provide the Commonwealth with certain discovery. Defendant subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from these orders. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied extraordinary relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal from any adverse ruling on the motion for a new trial. View "Field v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law