Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of violating a protection order issued by a judge in New Hampshire in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A, 7. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury regarding the intent required for a finding of a violation of the protection order. Specifically, Defendant argued that had she violated the protection order in New Hampshire, she could not be convicted of violating the order unless a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that she had “knowingly” violated the order, as defined under New Hampshire law, and the same standard should apply where the alleged violation occurred in Massachusetts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where an out-of-state abuse protection order is allegedly violated in Massachusetts and prosecuted under chapter 209A, the violation is governed by Massachusetts law and the jury should be instructed in accordance with Massachusetts law, and therefore, the judge in this case did not err by instructing the jury regarding the requirements of proof under Massachusetts law; and (2) no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice arose with regard to the judge’s further instructions to the jury.View "Commonwealth v. Shea" on Justia Law

After receiving a telephone call from Defendant’s neighbor, police entered Defendant’s front yard without a warrant and seized three dogs, two of which appeared to be dead, that had been left outside in severely inclement winter weather. Defendant was subsequently charged with three counts of animal cruelty. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search. The superior court granted the motion but reported the question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court of whether the ‘pure emergency’ exception to the warrant requirement extends to animals. The Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement extends to police action undertaken to render emergency assistance to animals. Remanded.View "Commonwealth v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff rented an apartment from Defendants, the owner and manager of the property. While ascending an exterior staircase leading to an outer door on the second floor landing, Plaintiff leaned against the staircase guardrail, which broke, causing Plaintiff to fall to the pavement below. Plaintiff sued Defendants. A jury found both parties negligent and concluded that, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 143, 51, Defendants were strictly liable for Plaintiff’s injuries because the injuries were caused by violations of the State building code. Defendants filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial, arguing that section 51 did not apply to the circumstances. The court denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the part of the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as related to the section 51 claim, holding (1) section 51 applies to all violations of the State building code, not just those concerning fire safety; and (2) the term “building” as used in the statute does not encompass within its ambit of strict liability of a small-scale residential structure like that occupied by Plaintiff, notwithstanding that the structure had some commercial characteristics. View "Sheehan v. Weaver" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and the two defendants in this case were Roman Catholic priests. In 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Defendants published, in the parish where Defendant was serving, a false and defamatory stalking accusation against Plaintiff. Plaintiff knew that Defendants published the stalking accusation in 2005, but Defendant did not discover until 2007 that Defendants had fabricated the defamatory accusation. The superior court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the three-year statute of limitations barred Plaintiff’s claim and that the discovery rule did not toll the limitations period. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that, under the discovery rule, the statute of limitations should be tolled because, until 2007, Plaintiff reasonably could have believed that Defendants were permitted or privileged to repeat the defamatory statement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint, holding (1) under the discovery rule, knowledge of the identity of the defendant is necessary for a cause of action to accrue; and (2) because Plaintiff knew in 2005 that Defendants were the publishers of the defamatory stalking accusation, Plaintiff’s complaint was not timely filed.View "Harrington v. Costello" on Justia Law

Dr. Melvin Levine worked as a pediatric physician at Children’s Hospital Medical Center from 1966 to 1985. After leaving Children’s Hospital, Levine resumed practicing medicine as an employee of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine (UNC) in North Carolina. In 2011, eleven former patients of Levine at UNC (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this negligence action against Children’s Hospital, alleging that Children’s Hospital knew or should have known Levine was conducting inappropriate genital examinations of minors during his employment at Children’s Hospital yet failed to report Levine’s conduct. Due to this alleged negligence, Plaintiffs asserted that Levine was able to continue his abuse of patients, including Plaintiffs, during his employment at UNC. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Children’s Hospital did not owe a legally cognizable duty of reasonable care to Plaintiffs requiring it to take affirmative action to protect them from Levine. View "Roe No. 1 v. Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

In 2010, Defendant, who was known to be associated with a gang, was indicted for the murder of a fourteen-year-old and the wounding of a fifteen-year-old. The Commonwealth, which believed the murder was committed in connection with the gang’s criminal activities, obtained from a cooperating witness a surreptitiously recorded conversation between Defendant and other gang members, during which Defendant admitted to the killing. Defendant sought to suppress the recorded conversation as well as statements he made to the police during a post-arrest interview. The superior court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress as to all of his statements. The Supreme Judicial Court (1) affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress with respect to Defendant’s recorded conversation; but (2) reversed the denial with respect to statements Defendant made during the custodial interview after clearly invoking his right to remain silent.View "Commonwealth v. Hearns" 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, and related crimes. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of conviction and declined to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial pursuant to the Court’s power under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in its evidentiary rulings; (2) Defendant’s counsel rendered effective assistance; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) the trial judge did not err in instructing the jury. View "Commonwealth v. Johnston" on Justia Law

In 2000, John Buonomo retired from his position as a Somerville alderman and began receiving pension benefits from the retirement board of Somerville (“Board”). Buonomo was subsequently elected register of probate of Middlesex County. In 2009, Buonomo was convicted of several offenses, including breaking into a depository and embezzlement by a public officer, which crimes were committed while Buonomo was register of probate. In light of Buonomo’s criminal convictions, the Board voted to forfeit Buonomo’s pension under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 15. The district court reversed the Board’s decision, determining that because the crimes for which Buonomo was convicted did not arise from his work as a Somerville alderman, for which he was receiving the retirement allowance, the Board lacked a basis for revoking Buonomo’s pension. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) there is no requirement in section 15 that the public office to which a board of alderman for the city of Somerville member’s criminal convictions relate be the same as the public office from which that member is receiving a retirement allowance; and (2) because Buonomo violated the laws applicable to a position of public trust, Buonomo forfeited his entitlement to a retirement allowance from the Board.View "Ret. Bd. of Somerville v. Buonomo " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing or concealing stolen paintings. The victim of the theft (Plaintiff) filed a civil suit against Defendant for, among other claims, violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) due to Defendant’s transfers of assets to his family members following the discovery of his identity as the holder of the stolen paintings. Plaintiff also brought claims for relief under the UFTA against Defendant’s family members alleged to have received the fraudulent transfers. A jury found Defendant had made seven fraudulent transfers within the meaning of the UFTA, entering judgment against Defendant for more than $4.3 million. Additionally, the judge ordered equitable remedies against the relief defendants for the purposes of identifying specific assets that had been fraudulently conveyed and could be subject to reconveyance in satisfaction of the judgment against Defendant. Lastly, the judge dismissed the claim against one of the relief defendants concerning assets in a shared trust because the funds in the trust had been dissipated. Defendant appealed, arguing that money judgments should have been ordered against the relief defendants. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment except in respect to a savings account and the shared trust. Remanded.View "Bakwin v. Mardirosian" on Justia Law

In 2006, Wife filed a complaint for divorce against Husband. The judge ordered Husband to pay temporary alimony pending final adjudication of the divorce, which entered in 2008. In 2011, Wife filed a complaint for modification. The judge modified the duration of alimony and did not subtract the time period in which temporary alimony was paid from Wife’s calculation of the maximum presumptive duration of general term alimony. Husband filed a motion for relief from the judgment, arguing that the term of alimony should have been calculated from the service of the divorce complaint rather than the judgment of divorce. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the duration of temporary alimony is not included in calculating the maximum presumptive duration of general term alimony; and (2) where temporary alimony has been paid for an unusually long period of time or the recipient spouse has unfairly delayed final resolution of the case in an attempt to prolong the payment of alimony, a judge may consider the duration of temporary alimony in determining the duration of general term alimony.View "Holmes v. Holmes" on Justia Law