Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2006, defendant's wife and their nine-month-old daughter were found dead in a bed in the master bedroom of their home in Hopkinton. His wife had been shot once in the forehead; his daughter had been shot in the abdomen from close range while cradled in her mother's arms. Defendant, a British citizen, was charged with their murders and extradited from the United Kingdom, where he had traveled. He was convicted of counts of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, G.L. c. 265, sect. 1. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting an argument that the motion judge (who was also the trial judge) erred in denying his motion to suppress the fruits of the warrantless searches of his home by officers attempting to find his missing family. The court also rejected defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury because the jury pool was tainted by "saturating and inflammatory" media coverage and because the judge refused during jury selection to probe more deeply into whether prospective jurors had already concluded from the pretrial publicity that the defendant was guilty of the crimes charged. View "Commonwealth v. Entwistle" on Justia Law

In 1990 McCarthy bought land at a mortgage foreclosure sale conducted by defendant, Seamen's, the mortgage holder. The advertisement described the parcel as "at the end of the paved portion of Higgins Hollow Road, Truro." McCarthy obtained a mortgage from Seamen's and retained defendant, Snow, an attorney. Before closing, Snow and issued to Seamen's a certificate of title. McCarthy received a copy. The foreclosure deed and mortgage were recorded. McCarthy purchased the property under the belief that it was in a specific location; it is actually another parcel. Following a land court action concerning a boundary dispute with a neighbor, McCarthy sued those involved in her purchase. During discovery, defendants sought, from the land court action, time sheets, correspondence between or among McCarthy and her attorneys, land surveyors, title abstractors, and title examiners; and all documents concerning the parcels. The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the defendants did not establish entitlement to discovery of communications protected by attorney-client privilege under a theory of at issue waiver, but may discover the other information that qualifies as "fact" work product under Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), because they have shown substantial need for the material and cannot without undue hardship obtain it from another source. View "McCarthy v. Slade Assocs., Inc." on Justia Law

A district attorney filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct alleging that a judge had exhibited "disregard for the law, lack of impartiality, and bias against the Commonwealth," S.J.C. Rule 3:09. The complaint enumerated 24 categories of decisions in which the judge allegedly exercised bias. For each category, the complaint provided one or more examples. The commission appointed special counsel to investigate. Months later, the Boston Globe published an article and an editorial reporting on the complaint and criticizing the judge's conduct in 10 cases. Four of these cases were not included in the complaint. The special counsel stated his intention to inquire about the additional cases and requested a broad set of documents. These requests were incorporated into a subpoena. The judge sought a protective order to quash or modify, arguing that the requests were overbroad and encroached on confidential, deliberative communications. Special counsel reduced the number of new cases to 23, identified into which area of inquiry each case fell, and removed one category of requested documents. The judge objected to the revised subpoena. The Massachusetts Supreme Court directed issuance of a revised subpoena, recognizing a judicial deliberative privilege as necessary to the finality, integrity, and quality of judicial decisions. View "In the Matter of Enforcement of a Subpoena" on Justia Law

The Bridgewater State University Foundation owns three buildings and three undeveloped parcels. One building is occupied by foundation offices and the university's alumni office; another houses the university's political science department; and the third is used by the university and the foundation for receptions and fundraising. The undeveloped parcels are used by students for recreation. None of the properties is used exclusively by the foundation. The foundation permits the university to use all the properties free of charge. The Appellate Tax Board decided that the foundation was entitled to the charitable exemption from local property taxes, G.L. c. 59, Sect. 5; the Appeals Court reversed. The Massachusetts Supreme Court concluded that the foundation is entitled to the exemption. The foundation is a public charitable trust, and it is "organized and operate[s] exclusively for the benefit of" Bridgewater State University under G.L. c. 15A, sect. 37. The foundation has qualified as a tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The university is an institution of public higher education and certifies that the foundation is operating "in a manner consistent with" the university's goals and policies and uses its money and assets solely for the benefit of the university. View "Bridgewater State Univ. Found. v. Bd. of Assessors of Bridgewater" on Justia Law

On November 19, 1985, Patricia Clark was discovered stabbed to death in her Lowell home. At the time, the investigation focused on the defendant, a former boyfriend; Clark had ended their relationship earlier that year. Investigators interviewed defendant and searched his automobile, but the case proceeded no further. In 2005, after reviewing photographs of items that had been found in the defendant's vehicle 20 years earlier, Clark's daughter provided "cold case" detectives with new information linking the defendant to the crime. He was indicted, and in 2007 a jury convicted him of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, to admission of testimony by certain witnesses, and to a jury instruction on consciousness of guilt. View "Commonwealth v. Emeny" on Justia Law

Three witnesses identified defendant as the shooter. He was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of both premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, G.L. c. 265, s 1; carrying a firearm without a license, G.L. c. 269l s 10 (a); carrying a loaded firearm, G.L. c. 269, s 10; possession of ammunition without a FID card, G.L. c. 269, s 10 (b ); and discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a building, G.L. c. 269, s 12E. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed, finding that evidentiary errors were not prejudicial in light of the strong case against defendant. The court had allowed the prosecution to introduce a round of ammunition found in defendant's apartment, with an instruction that these items could be considered only to show defendant's familiarity with or access to firearms, The court permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence of security measures in defendant's apartment: pit bull dogs, a security camera trained on the front door, and a police scanner. The court permitted a state trooper to testify to a conversation between defendant and the key identifying witness, DeMiranda, in which defendant offered to pay DeMiranda to leave the country. View "Commonwealth v. Barbosa" on Justia Law

Manavoglu was shot while pursuing the man who had robbed him at gun point in the restaurant he owned in Boston. He died two days later. A jury convicted defendant, whom the police apprehended in the area within minutes of the incident, whom two witnesses identified, and who confessed to the crime during a police interview, of felony-murder in the first degree (G.L. c. 265, 1); armed robbery (G.L. c. 265, 17); possession of a firearm and ammunitions without a firearm identification card (G.L. c. 269, 10 (a) and G.L. c. 269, 10(h )). The Second Circuit vacated the armed robbery conviction as duplicative because it was the predicate to the felony-murder conviction, but otherwise affirmed. The court rejected arguments concerning refusal to suppress statements made during an interview within hours of the shooting; evidence regarding gunshot residue testing conducted on clothing found near the scene; testimony from a witness, who had identified defendant, about his military training on "observations," and incorporation of that testimony into closing arguments; and prosecutorial comments that impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant and inaccurately characterized evidence. The defendant also argued the Commonwealth's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony that the defendant characterized as "notoriously unreliable." View "Commonwealth v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In 2004-2005, Costa & Son Construction performed site work for the general contractor (Braitt) on such a project in Bridgewater. After Braitt terminated the relationship Costa sued, alleging breach of contract and violations of G.L. c. 93A. Costa sought to recover damages under a payment bond obtained by Brait from Arch Insurance, G.L. c. 149, 29. Brait asserted similar counterclaims against Costa. Arch argued that Costa had relinquished any right to claim against the bond pursuant to a provision of his subcontract with Brait. The trial court granted Brait and Arch directed verdict with respect to claims under the bond. A jury returned a verdict for Costa, against Brait. The Massachusetts Supreme Court vacated the directed verdict. A subcontractor on a public construction project for which a payment bond has been obtained by the general contractor pursuant to G.L. c. 149, 29, may not by private agreement forgo its right to pursue payment under the bond. The court also vacated the portion of the amended judgment granting consequential damages to Costa; consequential damages were precluded by the contract. View "Costa v. Brait Builders Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of rape and furnishing alcohol to a person under 21 years of age. On appeal he claimed error in the denial of his right to cross-examine the victim as to her motive to fabricate; in denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty as to the element that he knew or should have known of the victim's incapacity to consent; and in refusal to instruct the jury that they could consider the defendant's state of intoxication when deciding whether he reasonably should have known of the victim's incapacity to consent. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judge's instruction was error under Commonwealth v. Blache, (2008), in which it held that where the Commonwealth relies on evidence that a rape victim was incapable of consent to establish the element of lack of consent and thereby reduce the degree of required force to that which is needed to effect penetration, "the Commonwealth should also prove the defendant's knowledge of the complainant's incapacitated state." The error, however, did not prejudice the defendant. There was no evidence of debilitating intoxication. He was not entitled to an instruction on voluntary intoxication. View "Commonwealth v. Mountry" on Justia Law

In 2000 Go-Best wired $5 million to an account entitled "Morris M. Goldings client account" at Citizens Bank, based on representations made by Morris M. Goldings, who was then a Massachusetts attorney. Goldings later admitted that the representations were false and that he had used the money to pay other debts. Go-Best filed suit against Citizens Bank, bringing claims of misrepresentation, conversion, aiding and abetting a fraud, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a conversion, and negligence. Citizens Bank had no knowledge of Goldings's scheme to defraud Go-Best but failed to notify the Board of Bar Overseers of dishonored checks issued on the client account more than six months before Go-Best wired funds into that account. The trial court dismissed, but a divided Appeals Court reversed in part, vacating dismissal of claims of negligence and of aiding and abetting. The Massachusetts Supreme Court reinstated dismissal. Without actual knowledge, the bank's duty to notify the board of dishonored checks from trust accounts arose only from its contractual duty, not from any duty in tort, so the bank could not be liable to Go-Best for any negligence in fulfilling that duty. View "Go-Best Assets Ltd. v. Citizens Bank of MA" on Justia Law