Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was charged with twenty-one felony counts stemming from a fifteen-minute crime spree in February 2019, during which he attempted to break into homes, engaged in a physical altercation, stopped vehicles at gunpoint, and was ultimately apprehended by police. He was arraigned in May 2019 and held on high bail. Over the next several years, the case was delayed by issues including the Commonwealth’s slow production of mandatory discovery, changes in defense counsel, and the defendant’s own motions and requests. The COVID-19 pandemic led to statewide orders suspending jury trials for extended periods, further delaying proceedings.The case was heard in the Hampden Superior Court, where the defendant filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing that the delay violated both the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure (rule 36) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Superior Court judge excluded various periods from the speedy trial calculation, including time attributable to COVID-19 orders, delays caused by defense motions, and periods when the defendant changed counsel or requested continuances. The defendant was ultimately convicted on most counts after a bench trial, and he appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that delays resulting from its COVID-19 orders do not weigh against the Commonwealth in evaluating constitutional speedy trial claims. The Court further found that, after excluding periods attributable to the pandemic, defense motions, and other justified delays, the remaining delay did not violate rule 36 or the defendant’s constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment or Article 11 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions. View "Commonwealth v. Larace" on Justia Law

A member of the Lowell police department’s gang unit created an undercover Snapchat account using a “nonwhite” username and bitmoji, aiming to monitor gang activity by befriending users connected to other officers’ undercover accounts. The officer became “friends” with a user believed to be the defendant, though he did not know the user’s identity or race at the time. The defendant posted a video of himself discharging a firearm from a car, which led police to identify and locate him. A search of the defendant’s vehicle uncovered a firearm matching the one in the video and shell casings consistent with those found at the scene. The defendant did not possess a license to carry a firearm.The Lowell Division of the District Court Department charged the defendant with multiple firearms offenses. The defendant sought discovery on a selective enforcement claim, and the court ordered the production of relevant police records and policies. The records showed that all suspects charged from Snapchat investigations with identifiable race were nonwhite. The defendant moved to suppress evidence, arguing racial motivation in the investigation, but a District Court judge denied the motion, finding no reasonable inference of racial motivation. The defendant also moved to dismiss the firearms charges, claiming the resident firearm licensing scheme violated the Second Amendment. Another District Court judge denied this motion, finding the problematic provision severable. The defendant entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving his right to appeal.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the defendant had raised a reasonable inference of selective enforcement under the Commonwealth v. Long framework and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, requiring the Commonwealth to rebut the inference with a race-neutral reason. The court also held that the Commonwealth’s resident firearm licensing scheme was not facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, affirming the denial of the motion to dismiss. View "Commonwealth v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The case involved a defendant who was convicted by a jury in 2020 of murder in the first degree, armed robbery, larceny of a motor vehicle, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The events leading to the charges began when the defendant, his girlfriend, and the victim lived together in Florida, using proceeds from a house sale to fund hotel stays and drug purchases. After a falling out, the defendant and the victim traveled to Massachusetts, where tensions escalated over money. The defendant ultimately shot the victim in a Massachusetts park after a series of text messages and conversations indicating premeditation. The defendant admitted to the killing but claimed self-defense and mental impairment due to longstanding mental illness and substance use.The Superior Court conducted a twelve-day trial, after which the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to life without parole for murder, with additional consecutive sentences for the other convictions. He appealed his convictions and filed a motion for a new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The trial judge, who also heard the motion for a new trial, denied the motion after evidentiary hearings, finding that counsel’s investigation into the defendant’s mental health history was sufficient and that the strategic decision not to introduce corroborating medical records was reasonable.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. It found no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice from counsel’s investigation or strategic decisions, and determined that the prosecutor’s conduct did not improperly shift the burden of proof or prejudice the defendant. The court affirmed the convictions for murder, armed robbery, and larceny, and the denial of the new trial motion. However, it vacated the firearm conviction due to insufficient evidence regarding licensure and remanded for further proceedings on that count. View "Commonwealth v. Noguera" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, a lawyer, was accused of delivering sixty-one orange strips containing Suboxone, a controlled substance, to an inmate at a county house of correction. The delivery was disguised as legal paperwork following instructions from another inmate. The strips were confiscated by officers who suspected they were Suboxone. Forensic testing was performed by analyst Dunlap, who concluded the strips contained Suboxone. Dunlap documented her procedures and results in her notes, but was no longer employed at the crime lab at the time of trial. Instead, LaBelle, a supervisor who had not participated in or observed the testing, reviewed Dunlap’s work and testified as a substitute expert, relaying Dunlap’s notes and offering her own opinion based on the case file.A jury in the Massachusetts Superior Court found the defendant guilty of unlawfully delivering a class B controlled substance to a prisoner. The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that LaBelle’s opinion was independent. After the United States Supreme Court decided Smith v. Arizona, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Appeals Court’s judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Smith. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then transferred the case for review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the admission of LaBelle’s testimony violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. The Court found that LaBelle’s opinion was not independent, as it depended on the truth of Dunlap’s testimonial hearsay statements regarding the procedures and results of the testing. The Court concluded that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and vacated the conviction, remanding for a new trial. The Court also held that its new rule applies prospectively to cases not yet final. View "Commonwealth v. Gordon" on Justia Law

An individual pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offenses committed against two girls, aged thirteen and fourteen, when he was eighteen years old. The offenses included several instances of rape and indecent assault. The individual had a history of psychological diagnoses, including autism spectrum disorder. After his conviction, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) initially classified him as a level three sex offender, which would require the highest level of public notification. The individual challenged this classification, leading to a de novo hearing before a SORB hearing examiner.At the hearing, the examiner found by clear and convincing evidence that the individual posed a moderate risk of reoffense and a moderate degree of danger, resulting in a reclassification to level two. The examiner considered several statutory and regulatory factors, including the number of victims, the nature and location of the offenses, and the individual’s psychological profile. The examiner also considered the fact that the individual committed multiple offenses, including repeated offenses against one victim, as relevant to the degree of dangerousness. The examiner determined that Internet publication of the individual’s registration information would serve a public safety interest. The individual sought judicial review in the Massachusetts Superior Court, which affirmed the SORB’s decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the SORB hearing examiner did not err in considering the individual’s multiple offenses as relevant to dangerousness under regulatory factor thirty-seven, even though such consideration is limited under factor two, which addresses risk of reoffense. The court also declined to find the application of factor thirty-seven unconstitutional due to a lack of empirical evidence, given the statutory mandate to consider the number of offenses. The court affirmed the classification as a level two offender and the requirement for Internet dissemination of registration information. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

A former state senator was indicted on two counts of using his official position to secure unwarranted privileges by directing his publicly funded Senate staff to perform campaign work for his 2018 and 2020 reelection efforts. The Senate president received anonymous complaints about this conduct, which led to a Senate ethics committee investigation. The committee found that the senator knowingly had his staff perform campaign and fundraising work during regular business hours, ignored repeated warnings that this was inappropriate, and violated Senate rules and likely state conflict-of-interest and campaign-finance laws. The committee recommended disciplinary measures, and the matter was referred to state ethics and campaign finance authorities, eventually resulting in criminal indictments after a grand jury investigation.A judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictments, which argued for legislative immunity under the Massachusetts Constitution and claimed that the prosecution violated separation of powers principles. The defendant also argued that the prosecutor improperly excluded a grand juror for alleged political bias without court approval. After the motion was denied, the defendant sought interlocutory review in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County under G. L. c. 211, § 3.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that interlocutory review of a denial of a motion to dismiss based on legislative immunity in a criminal case must be sought under G. L. c. 211, § 3, not through the doctrine of present execution. The court further held that the defendant was not immune from prosecution under either the state constitution’s speech or debate clause or separation of powers provisions. Additionally, while the prosecutor erred in excusing a grand juror for bias without judicial involvement, the defendant was not prejudiced, so dismissal was not warranted. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded for entry of judgment denying extraordinary relief. View "Tran v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In this case, a juvenile defendant was implicated in a home invasion and rape that occurred in Methuen, Massachusetts, in November 2018. The victim identified three intruders, and subsequent investigation led to the defendant’s arrest. After his arrest, police obtained a DNA sample from the defendant via a warrantless buccal swab, which the Commonwealth later conceded was unlawful. The resulting DNA evidence was suppressed. However, after the defendant was indicted as a youthful offender, the Commonwealth, relying on evidence independent of the suppressed DNA, successfully moved for a court order compelling a second, postindictment buccal swab. DNA evidence from this second swab was admitted at trial.The Essex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department initially heard the case. The judge suppressed the first DNA sample but granted the Commonwealth’s motion to compel the second sample, finding probable cause based on evidence unrelated to the initial, unlawful swab. At trial, the defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape and other offenses. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and probation. The defendant appealed, challenging both the order compelling the second DNA sample and the jury instructions regarding “serious bodily injury” as an element of aggravated rape. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case from the Appeals Court for review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the second, court-ordered buccal swab was lawfully obtained based on independent probable cause and was not tainted by the prior illegality, so the DNA evidence was properly admitted. The Court also found no error in the jury instructions. However, because the general verdict did not specify which aggravating theory the jury relied on, and only one theory was supported by sufficient evidence, the aggravated rape conviction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Carvajal" on Justia Law

A police officer in East Bridgewater observed two men riding a moped without helmets and initiated a traffic stop. The operator, John Pena, had a suspended license and an outstanding warrant, while the passenger, Erik Ferrara, also lacked a driver’s license. Unable to secure the moped, the officer arranged for it to be towed and conducted an inventory search, discovering a backpack in the storage compartment. Inside the backpack, the officer found a loaded handgun with its serial number removed, along with Ferrara’s identification card and other personal items. Ferrara was arrested and later claimed ownership of some items in the backpack but denied knowledge of the firearm.In the Brockton Division of the District Court Department, Ferrara moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing that the impoundment and inventory search violated departmental policy. The motion was denied, and Ferrara proceeded to trial, where a jury found him guilty of carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a loaded firearm without a license, and defacement of a firearm’s serial number. Other charges were dismissed at the Commonwealth’s request. Ferrara appealed, challenging the denial of his suppression motion and the sufficiency of evidence for the defacement conviction.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the motion to suppress was properly denied, finding the impoundment and inventory search consistent with departmental policy and constitutional requirements. However, the court vacated Ferrara’s firearm possession convictions and ordered a new trial, as the jury had not been properly instructed that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ferrara did not possess a firearms license. The court also reversed the conviction for intentional defacement of a firearm, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support that charge under the theory presented to the jury. View "Commonwealth v. Ferrara" on Justia Law

In the early morning of July 7, 2012, a group of men, including the defendant and his cousin, forcibly entered a home in Billerica, Massachusetts, intending to commit robbery. Several were armed. During the attempted robbery, a struggle broke out between the intruders and the residents. The defendant was struck with a tea kettle, and in the ensuing chaos, one of the residents was fatally shot. The perpetrators fled without obtaining any money. The defendant later sought medical treatment for injuries sustained during the incident.After being identified as a suspect, the defendant was interviewed by police on multiple occasions. He initially denied involvement but later made incriminating statements after being shown a portion of his cousin’s recorded interview implicating him. The defendant moved to suppress these statements, arguing they were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and were involuntary. The Superior Court judge denied the motion to suppress, finding no violation. At trial, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felony-murder in the first degree and armed home invasion. The attempted armed robbery conviction was dismissed as duplicative. The defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, the jury instructions on armed home invasion, and seeking relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. It held that the defendant’s statements were not the product of custodial interrogation prior to Miranda warnings, and that his subsequent waiver of rights and statements were voluntary. The Court also found that, although the trial judge’s jury instruction on armed home invasion contained a minor legal error, it did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the Court declined to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, finding no basis to disturb the verdict. The convictions were affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Estabrook" on Justia Law

A dispute arose over public access to a portion of Estabrook Road in Concord, Massachusetts, which runs through land owned by various private parties, land trusts, and Harvard College. The road consists of a northern section, which was formally laid out by county authorities in 1763, and a southern section, for which no direct layout records exist but which connects to the northern section and an undisputed public way. The abutting landowners sought to bar public access, arguing that the southern section was never a public way and that a 1932 discontinuance order by county commissioners converted the road into a private way, extinguishing public rights. The town of Concord contended that both sections were public ways and that the 1932 order only ended the town’s maintenance obligation, not public access.The Land Court, after a bench trial, found that both the northern and southern disputed sections had been established as public ways, the latter based on circumstantial evidence such as historical use, maintenance, and references in town records. The court also concluded that the 1932 discontinuance under G. L. c. 82, § 32A, terminated only the town’s duty to maintain the road, not the public’s right to use it. The Appeals Court affirmed, modifying the judgment to clarify that both sections were public ways prior to 1932 and that public access was not terminated by the 1932 order.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. It held that the Land Court did not err in finding, based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, that the disputed sections were public ways by 1763. The Court further held that the 1932 discontinuance under § 32A relieved the town of maintenance obligations but did not extinguish the public’s right of access to the road. The judgment as modified by the Appeals Court was affirmed. View "Town of Concord v. Rasmussen" on Justia Law