Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in an abusive relationship. Plaintiff and the parties' child moved out of Massachusetts but subsequently obtained an abuse prevention order, issued pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A. Plaintiff later requested that the order be extended by one year. The judge extended the order for six months instead. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the judge abused her discretion by extending the order for six months, rather than a full year, because she improperly considered matters outside the purview of chapter 209A. The Supreme Court (1) dismissed the appeal as moot because the abuse prevention order had expired and Plaintiff did not seek to have it extended further in the trial court; but (2) concluded that the judge abused her discretion by considering Defendant's visitation rights in deciding to extend the order for six months. View "Moreno v. Naranjo" on Justia Law

Six years after his convictions were affirmed and four years after the denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed, Defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful sentence, alleging that the trial judge perceived Defendant's trial testimony as perjurious and then improperly considered his testimony in imposing sentence. A different judge denied the motion, as the trial judge had retired. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentences and remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that the trial judge erred by considering Defendant's testimony in imposing sentence, and because sentencing was thus improper, Defendant must be resentenced. View "Commonwealth v. Gomes" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned an order of a superior court judge allowing Defendants' motions to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. A confidential informant (CI) informed Patrick Byrne, a Boston police officer with experience in drug investigations and arrests, that defendant Anthony Gerald was selling heroin and that the CI had purchased heroin from him in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston (the premises) in the past. Under the supervision of law enforcement, the CI thereafter made three controlled purchases from Gerald. Based on information from an affidavit filed by Byrne, a warrant was issued to search the premises. The warrant led to the arrest of Defendants. The superior court allowed Defendants' motions to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Byrne's affidavit established the required nexus between the alleged criminal activity and the premises to be searched. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that evidence connected to the alleged drug offenses would be found at the premises. View "Commonwealth v. Clagon" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree and for unlawful possession of a firearm and of ammunition as an armed career criminal. The Commonwealth sought to introduce at trial Defendant's three recorded statements to police as well as eight recorded telephone calls Defendant made from the house of correction. Following two hearings on Defendant's motions to exclude his statements to police and the recorded calls, the judge ordered that portions of Defendant's statements to police and six of the eight statements in the recorded phone calls be excluded. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's rulings, holding that the judge did not err in excluding the statements at issue. View "Commonwealth v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Landlord and Tenant entered into a twelve-year lease for commercial space. The lease required a separate guaranty agreement to be executed by Guarantor. Tenant stopped making rent payments a couple of years later, and thereafter, Landlord reentered and took possession of the premises, thereby terminating the lease. Landlord subsequently filed suit against Tenant and Guarantor for damages arising from the breach of contract. The superior court granted summary judgment to Landlord as to liability and awarded damages in the amount of $1,092,653, for which Tenant and Guarantor were jointly liable. The appeals court affirmed in part and vacated the judgment assessing damages and remanded. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the part of the judgment finding Tenant liable for breach of the lease and assessing damages for the period before termination of the lease in the amount of $37,276 plus prejudgment interest; and (2) vacated the part of the judgment assessing damages for the period following termination of the lease and awarding attorney's fees. View "275 Washington St. Corp. v. Hudson River Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on several counts of sexual assault of a child under the age of sixteen. The victim was a mute and autistic child, and Defendant was the victim's grandfather. Carrie, the victim's older half-sister, suspected abuse and set up a hidden video camera in the bedroom in Defendant's home, aiming the camera at the bed. Carrie then took the recording to the police department, after which Defendant was arrested. Defendant moved to suppress the victim's oral communications in the audiovisual recording and subsequent statements he made to the police. The superior court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that, under the circumstances, Carrie could vicariously consent to the recording of the victim's oral communications under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. View "Commonwealth v. F.W." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to dismiss for violations of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, impairment of the integrity of the grand jury, and loss of evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for funds to retain an identification expert; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to police officers; (4) the trial court did not err in making certain evidentiary rulings at trial; and (5) Defendant's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "Commonwealth v. Carr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree based on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in accepting the assertion by a witness of privilege under the Fifth Amendment and in conducting a hearing on the witness's claim of privilege; (2) Defendant's delay in raising the issue of the unanimity of the jury's verdict of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon was dispositive of his claim in this appeal; (3) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial where Defendant's trial counsel provided him with effective assistance; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to prove extreme atrocity or cruelty. View "Commonwealth v. Alicea" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased real property after a real estate broker gave him incorrect information about the zoning classification of the property. Plaintiff was thereafter unable to use the property as he intended. Plaintiff sued the broker and the real estate agency that employed her, alleging misrepresentation and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, 2. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) a broker has a duty to exercise reasonable care in making representations as to a property's zoning designation, and where the misrepresentations were based on information provided by the seller, as in this case, the question of whether it was reasonable in the circumstances to rely on such information is to be determined by the trier of fact; and (2) an exculpatory clause in the purchase and sale agreement did not preclude the buyer's reliance on prior written representations as to zoning classification. View "DeWolfe v. Hingham Centre, Ltd." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree of his wife on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of murder by extreme atrocity or cruelty; (2) the trial judge did not err in admitting the medical examiner's testimony or Defendant's jailhouse telephone call recordings; (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument; and (4) the jury was properly instructed on "dangerous weapon"; (5) cumulative error did not require reversal; and (6) there was no reason to reduce the murder conviction or order a new trial pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Roy" on Justia Law