Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court held that a closed case that ends in an acquittal, a no bill from a grand jury, or a finding of no probable cause by the court is not a record subject to a presumption of access under the First Amendment and that the Legislature clearly abrogated the common-law presumption of access with respect to these records by its plain language in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100C.Defendant was arraigned on two counts of rape while armed with a firearm and other crimes. A jury acquitted Defendant on one count of rape while armed, assault with intent to rape, and carrying a firearm without a license and deadlocked on the remaining three counts, resulting in a mistrial. The Commonwealth ultimately filed a nolle prosequi. Defendant later brought his section 100C petition to seal his criminal record as to the counts on which he was acquitted and the courts for which the nolle prosequi was filed. A judge denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that, regarding the counts in which the nolle prosequi was entered, the judge abused his discretion when weighing the relevant interests and factors. View "Commonwealth v. J.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reduced Defendant's convictions of armed robbery while masked to unarmed robbery and vacated the judgment on the conviction of armed home invasion and set aside the verdict, holding that an instructional error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of armed home invasion and armed robbery while masked. While the indictments were based on a theory of joint venture the jury were not instructed that the Commonwealth must prove that Defendant knew that at least one coventurer was armed and at least one coventurer was armed and masked. The Supreme Court held (1) the failure to provide these instructions was error; and (2) the error left the Court with a serious doubt whether the result of the trial might have been different had the jury been correctly instructed. View "Commonwealth v. Desiderio" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of two counts of murder in the first degree on the theory of premeditation as to Mark Greenlaw and Jennifer O'Connor and on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty as to O'Connor, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial regarding the victim's fear of rape; (2) the prosecutor's statement during closing argument impermissibly appeal to the jury's sympathy, but the statement did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could consider voluntary ingestion of drugs in determining extreme atrocity or cruelty, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (4) the judge did not err in excusing juror number fifteen; (5) the indictment charging attempted burning of a dwelling was not defective; and (6) there was no error warranting relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Doughty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the superior court judge dismissing indictments against Defendants - the superintendent and medical director of the Soldiers' Home in Holyoke - for elder neglect in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 13K (d 1/2) for their alleged failure to provide treatment or services to the veterans housed at Soldiers' Home, holding that the superior court judge erred in dismissing the indictments.Seventeen days after the Governor declared a state of emergency in the Commonwealth due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants directed their staff to consolidate two floors of elderly veterans onto one floor, and some of the veterans were crowded into a locked space designed to house twenty-five patients at the maximum. Three days later, as many as ten veterans had died from COVID-19. The grand jury determined that probable cause existed to believe that Defendants violated the elder neglect statute. The superior court dismissed the indictments. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the grand jury heard testimony that would warrant finding probable cause that (1) there was probable cause that Defendants were caretakers; and (2) Defendants engaged in intentional conduct of omission that involved a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result. View "Commonwealth v. Clinton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this case to the district court, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw her admission to sufficient facts.Defendant admitted to facts sufficient to support a finding of guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), second offense, after she was informed that a breath test result showed a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.23 percent. After Defendant was placed on probation and her driver's license was suspended, Defendant moved to withdraw her admission to sufficient facts. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) Defendants who pleaded guilty to an OUI offense where a breath test had been conducted using an Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer from June 1, 2011 through April 28, 2019 are entitled to a conclusive presumption that the first prong of the Scott-Ferrara test is satisfied; and (2) Defendant was entitled to withdraw her motion to withdraw her admission to sufficient facts. View "Commonwealth v. Hallinan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of being an accessory before the fact to kidnapping and the order denying his motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant, a police officer, provided several specific items to James Feeney, his drug supplier, at Feeney's request, including information about the victim as well as Defendant's police badge, gun holster, and handcuffs. Feeney provided the information and items to Scott Morrison and Alfred Ricci, who convinced the victim they were at his house to complete a mandatory drug test. The pair kidnapped him, and Feeney murdered him. Defendant was convicted of being an accessory before the fact to kidnapping. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and the denial of Defendant's postconviction motion, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant shared Feeney's intent that the kidnapping take place; (2) the trial judge's instructions to the jury were without error; and (3) there was no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Schoener" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing as moot Father's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.The Department of Children and Families filed a care and protection petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 24 after the child in this case tested positive at birth for drugs. Thereafter, temporary custody was granted to Father. Father filed a motion to dismiss the petition for temporary custody on the grounds that there was no need for judicial intervention. The judge denied the order. Thereafter, Father brought his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. While the petition was pending, the juvenile court dismissed the care and protection case. On that basis, the single justice dismissed Father's as moot Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that this Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider Father's appeal notwithstanding the fact that it was moot. View "In re Care & Protection of a Minor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's firearm-related convictions, holding that there was probable cause to search the glove department of Defendant's car but that the judge erred in not instructing the jury on the licensure exemption set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10.After receiving a tip from a confidential informant Boston police officers searched Defendant's vehicle without a warrant and discovered a loaded firearm and large capacity magazine in the glove compartment. At issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on either of the two exemptions contained in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm due process requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license, and therefore, Defendant's convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition could not stand; and (2) because there is no constitutional right to possess a large capacity magazine, Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device is affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Guardado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court adjudicating Appellant delinquent on two charges of attempting to burn a public building, holding that that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 5A, the attempted arson statute, is a specific intent crime.Appellant was arraigned in the juvenile court after he performed the TikTok "penny challenge" twice at his school, leading to his adjudication. On appeal, Appellant argued that section 5A requires proof of specific intent and that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the specific intent to burn or set fire to the building. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) attempt to burn a public building is a specific intent crime; and (2) the evidence demonstrated that Appellant specifically intended his conduct and its consequences. View "Commonwealth v. Qasim Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial judge revoking Defendant's probation and sentencing him to two years in a house of correction followed by one year of probation, holding that the wiretap statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, did not preclude the use of born-worn camera footage at Defendant's probation violation proceeding.While on probation for assault and battery and for violating an abuse prevention order Defendant forcibly entered his girlfriend's residence over her objection and assaulted her. After a domestic disturbance call, police officers arrived at the victim's residence. One officer activated his body-worn camera before entering the premise and captured audio-visual footage of the victim's reporting of the events that had transpired, the state of her home within his plain view, and his interview with the victim's daughters. At issue was whether the wiretap statute precluded the use of the body-worn camera footage at the probation violating proceeding or whether the recording violated Defendant's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Rainey" on Justia Law