Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and the denial of his motions for a new trial and discerned no basis to reduce the verdict or to order a new trial pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object when court officers excluded the public and Defendant’s family from the courtroom during jury empanelment; (2) Defendant waived his right to be present at sidebar discussions during jury empanelment; (3) the trial judge acted within his discretion in deciding not to allow Defendant’s peremptory challenges of three African-American jurors; (4) Defendant’s challenges to the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings were without merit; (5) the prosecutor did not impermissibly bolster the creditability of certain witnesses or commit prejudicial error during closing argument; (6) no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice occurred when the judge instructed the jury; and (7) Defendant’s motion for a new trial was properly denied. View "Commonwealth v. Fritz" on Justia Law

Each plaintiff in these consolidated appeals was licensed as a commercial driver and was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Each plaintiff admitted to sufficient facts to warrant a finding (CWOF) of guilty, and the judge continued the cases without a finding of guilty. The registrar of motor vehicles determined that the admission and CWOF were a “conviction” and suspended the commercial drivers license of each plaintiff. The Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds affirmed each decision of the registrar. The superior court vacated the Board’s decision in each case, determining that a CWOF is not a conviction as that term is defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90F. The Board and the registrar appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the decisions of the superior court and entered judgment in favor of the Board, holding that an admission to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty and the judge’s continuance of the case without a finding of guilty is a “conviction” as that term is defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90F, 1. View "Tirado v. Bd. of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies & Bonds" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial and discerned no basis to exercise its authority pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in allowing multiple prior consistent statements; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the admission of certain evidence and failing to impeach a witness; (3) there was not improper prosecutorial vouching during closing argument that created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (4) the conviction was viable despite the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating witness, and newly discovered evidence did not necessitate a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Lessieur" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the trial judge’s refusal to grant immunity to two potential defense witnesses did not violate Defendant’s right to a fair trial and due process of law, nor his right to present a complete defense; and (2) the prosecutor did not engage in improper vouching or misstate the evidence in during closing arguments. View "Commonwealth v. Brewer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in its partial denial of his motion to suppress statements he made after being taken involuntarily into the police station. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s motion to suppress should have been allowed in its entirety because these statements were the inadmissible fruits of an unlawful arrest, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (2) the trial court did not err in denying defense counsel’s motion to withdraw from the case two days before trial; and (3) Defendant’s claim that his counsel provided ineffective assistance lacked merit. View "Commonwealth v. Melo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of seven indictments charging offenses under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 13J(b), which imposes criminal penalties on a person who wantonly or recklessly permits bodily injury to a child in his care or wantonly or recklessly permits another to commit an assault and battery causing bodily injury upon such a child. The seven indictments were each based on a distinct injury or set of injuries to the victim. Defendant appealed, contending that the indictments were duplicative. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed all but one of Defendant’s convictions, holding that, to establish multiple violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 13J(b), the Commonwealth may not establish multiple convictions solely by showing multiple injuries to a single child but, rather, must prove either that the defendant engaged in separate and discrete instances of criminal conduct or that multiple victims were harmed as a result of the defendant’s criminal conduct. View "Commonwealth v. Traylor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, acting on behalf of his minor son, commenced this negligence action against the City of Somerville. The City filed a motion to dismiss under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), claiming that Plaintiff failed to meet the statutorily-required presentment requirements. The superior court denied the motion. The City appealed, arguing that its interlocutory appeal was proper under the doctrine of present execution. The Appeals Court dismissed the City’s appeal, concluding that the doctrine of present execution did not apply. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) the City’s appeal was not moot; (2) the appeal was proper under the doctrine of present execution; and (3) the City’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint should have been allowed because presentment in this case was deficient. View "Rodriguez v. City of Somerville" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberately premeditated murder. Defendant appealed, claiming evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction and declined Defendant’s request for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting evidence of an autopsy photograph; (2) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting a BB rifle together with ammunition that were unrelated to the killing; and (3) the prosecutor did commit impermissible misconduct during closing arguments. View "Commonwealth v. Carney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of larceny of a motor vehicle. The Commonwealth nol prossed the portion of the indictment that alleged a second or subsequent offense. Defendant filed motions pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 and, before the motions were acted on, filed a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition, arguing that the Commonwealth could not nol pros only a portion of the indictment. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court denied Defendant’s petition for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Defendant had an adequate alternative remedy by way of appeal. View "Carrington v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs granted a mortgage on their property to Emigrant Mortgage Company, Inc. Emigrant later foreclosed on the mortgage by exercise of the power of sale contained in the mortgage. Harold Wilion purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs brought this action against Emigrant and Wilion, seeking a judgment declaring that the sale was void because Emigrant failed to comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage, which contains the mortgagee’s provision of notice to the mortgagor of default and the right to cure, as well as the remedies available to the mortgagee upon the mortgagor’s failure to cure the default. The superior court allowed Emigrant’s motion to dismiss and Wilion’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Emigrant was not required strictly to comply with the notice of default and right-to-cure provisions of paragraph 22 of the mortgage. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) strict compliance with the notice of default provisions in paragraph 22 was required as a condition of a valid foreclosure sale; and (2) Emigrant failed to meet the strict compliance requirement. Remanded. View "Pinti v. Emigrant Mortgage Co., Inc." on Justia Law