Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was indicted for trafficking in cocaine. On the second day of trial, defense counsel discovered that the Commonwealth had violated a discovery order by failing to copy for the defense at least 500 pages of computer-generated information obtained during the police investigation. Defendant moved to dismiss the case but, for financial and emotional reasons, objected to any declaration of a mistrial. Finding that the Commonwealth had not intentionally violated the order, the trial judge denied the motion to dismiss. The judge further found that the newly disclosed materials contained information that any "reasonably diligent" defense counsel would want to review, and that to do so would take longer than a mere "brief delay." Therefore, the judge declared a mistrial over the defendant's objection. The court held that, based upon the facts of the case, the judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that there was "manifest necessity" for a mistrial. There was no double jeopardy bar and defendant could be retried. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the county court for an entry of judgment denying the petition. View "Cruz v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The court considered three petitions for relief under G.L.c. 211, section 3, that related to the OpenCourt pilot project, which broadcasts live by "streaming" over the Internet video and audio recordings of certain proceedings taking place in the Quincy District Court. Each petition challenged one or more orders of a judge in the Quincy District Court concerning the broadcasts and online posting of particular proceedings in two different criminal cases. The court concluded that any order restricting OpenCourt's ability to publish -- by "streaming live" over the Internet, publicly archiving on the Web site or otherwise -- existing audio and video recordings of court room proceedings represented a form of prior restraint on the freedoms of the press and speech protected by the First Amendment and art. 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as amended by art. 77 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution. Such an order could be upheld only if it was the least restrictive, reasonable measure necessary to protect a compelling governmental interest. In the Barnes case, the court vacated the order of the district court judge requiring the redaction of the minor alleged victim. In the Diorio case, the court concluded that Diorio had not met the heavy burden of justifying an order of prior restraint with respect to the specific proceedings at issue in his petition for relief. The court requested the Supreme Judicial Court's judiciary-media committee submit a set of guidelines of the operation of the OpenCourt project. View "Commonwealth v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to an armed robbery and appealed. The court concluded that the motion judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress, but that the trial judge erred in allowing the youthful offender adjudication of carjacking to be used as a predicate offense in finding defendant an armed career criminal, level three, under G.L.c. 269, section 10G(c). The court also concluded that defendant's convictions of assault by means of a dangerous weapon and armed robbery while masked were not duplicative, but that defendant's conviction of the unlawful possession of ammunition must be vacated where defendant had been convicted of carrying a loaded firearm. View "Commonwealth v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction of larceny of property over $250 by false pretenses. Defendant's principal argument on appeal was that there was insufficient evidence presented to sustain his conviction. The court agreed with defendant that the evidence was insufficient and held, inter alia, that the evidence did not furnish a sufficient basis for concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly made a false statement about the imminent sale of the property at issue either at the time the loan was agreed to or at the time the loan funds were disbursed. View "Commonwealth v. McCauliff" on Justia Law

In this consolidated appeal, the court construed the payment obligations of municipalities participating in G.L.c. 41, section 108L, (Quinn Bill), a local statute establishing a career incentive pay program for police officers. The underlying case arose when the Commonwealth, facing budgetary constraints, substantially cut reimbursements. Plaintiffs subsequently contended that clauses in the collective bargaining agreements (CBA) impermissibly conflict with the statute, which they viewed as requiring the city to pay 100% of benefits irrespective of reimbursement. The court held that the CBAs did not conflict with the statute and were valid. Section 108L required only that municipalities pay one-half the amounts specified in the payment provision, plus any amount actually received from the Commonwealth. Municipalities could agree to pay more, but the statute did not require it. Therefore, the cases were remanded to the county court, where the single justice was directed to issue a declaration stating that, with respect to section 108L, the CBAs between the city and the various police unions were valid and enforceable. View "Adams v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, as well as assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. On appeal defendant argued that the judge failed to conduct an appropriate voir dire of the prospective jurors during jury selection; his statement to police following his arrest on the day of the killing should have been suppressed; the judge erred in admitting a statement he made to another inmate; the prosecutor's closing argument was improper and created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice; and the judge erred when he instructed the jury that they must consider whether defendant "as a result of a mental illness, lacked the capacity to have the intent, knowledge, or state of mind necessary" to prove the crimes charged. The court addressed each issue and affirmed the convictions. After a complete review of the record, the court declined to exercise its authority under G.L.c. 278, section 33E, to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Bishop" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of failing to verify his sex offender registration information by refusing to provide certain secondary addresses, and was sentenced to lifetime parole. On appeal, defendant argued, inter alia, that the judge erred in denying his motions for a required finding of not guilty. Because the court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant, the court reversed. In light of this conclusion, the other issues defendant raised were moot. However, because there appeared to be some confusion concerning whether the complaint properly alleged that defendant could face lifetime parole, the court addressed it briefly. The court concluded that the complaint issued against defendant in this case did not meet requirements of art. 12. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed. View "Commonwealth v. Kateley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Superior Court from a decision of the defendant board of health of Southbridge (board) approving a "minor modification" to the site assignment for an existing landfill and related processing facility in that town under G.L.c. 111, section 150A. At issue was whether plaintiffs had standing to seek judicial review of the Superior Court of the board's decision. As a threshold matter, the court concluded that the Superior Court judge had authority to allow plaintiffs' motion to extend the time for filing their notice of appeal. The court concluded, however, that on the record before the court, plaintiffs lacked standing to seek judicial review of the board's decision in the Superior Court as persons "aggrieved" and plaintiffs' substantive challenges to the decision lacked merit. View "Board of Health of Sturbridge & others v. Board of Health of Southbridge & another." on Justia Law

Petitioner filed a petition for examination and discharge under G.L.c. 123A, section 9, the section of the sexually dangerous person statute that entitled someone who was committed as a sexually dangerous person annually to file a petition for examination and discharge from the Massachusetts Treatment Center. At issue was whether section 9 rendered admissible the written reports of expert witnesses retained by a section 9 petitioner for purposes of the section 9 proceeding. The court concluded that an interpretation of section 9 to bar the admission in evidence of a written report prepared by a petitioner's expert psychiatrist or psychologist, while authorizing introduction of the reports prepared by the qualified examiners and the community access board, would raise substantial due process concerns. Therefore, the court construed section 9 to render admissible petitioner's experts' written reports. The court agreed with the Appeals Court that the objected-to exclusion of the written reports prepared by petitioner's experts in this case was prejudicial and vacated the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Santos, petitioner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs originally filed a complaint asserting that defendants were liable on various claims under principles of common-law negligence. After a variety of counts against defendants were dismissed on summary judgment, plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert additional claims against defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant, Jessica, was negligent for knowingly allowing underage persons to possess alcohol on property under her control -- conduct that plaintiffs claimed violated G.L.c. 138, section 34. The court was asked to enlarge the scope of social host liability under its common law by extending a duty of care to an underage host who did not supply alcohol to underage guests, but provided a location where they were permitted to consume it. The court declined to extend the scope of liability and reaffirmed that liability attached only where a social host either served alcohol or exercised effective control over the supply of alcohol. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "Juliano & others v. Simpson & another." on Justia Law