Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury-waived trial on the Commonwealth's petition for commitment under G.L.c. 123A, sections 12-16, a judge in the Superior Court concluded that as applied to defendant, whose victims both historically and predictably were limited to adult women to whom he would expose himself, sometimes while masturbating, the statute could not be construed constitutionally to support a determination that would result in defendant's commitment as a sexually dangerous person. The Commonwealth appealed, and sought a stay of defendant's release pending appeal. The court held that the finding made as to the manner in which defendant had behaved historically, and the findings as to his predicted criminal sexual behavior, did not support a finding that he was a "menace" within the meaning of section 123A. Consequently, the court need not decide the constitutional question and defendant was entitled to a judgment that he was not a sexually dangerous person. View "Commonwealth v. Suave" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of possession of a class C substance, clonazepam, and a class E substance, trazodone; possession with intent to distribute a class D substance, marijuana; and a drug violation near a school or park. Defendant contended, among other things, that the admission of drug certificates without the testimony of the analyst violated his constitutional rights. The court held that because the erroneous admission of the drug certificates was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the court reversed defendant's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. Because the Commonwealth could choose to retry defendant, the court considered other issues raised by his claims of error that could be material to a retrial. View "Commonwealth v. Nelson" on Justia Law

In the early morning hours of January 12, 1991, six men were shot execution-style in the basement of an illegal gambling parlor in the Chinatown section of Boston. After the shootings, arrest warrants were issued for the defendants and in 1999, one defendant, Siny Van Tran, was arrested in China. Another defendant, Nam The Tham, was arrested the following year in China. Both defendants were extradited from Hong Kong to the United States and subsequently convicted of five charges of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. On appeal, defendants asserted several claims of error related to the denial of motions for severance, the admissibility of airline records, improper prosecutorial vouching, and the admission of inculpatory statements. After the court reviewed the briefs, the entire record, all the issues, and the arguments, the court saw no reason to reduce the degree of guilt on the murder convictions or to order a new trial. Accordingly, the judgments were affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Tran (and 13 companion cases)" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was under fourteen-years-old at the time of the alleged offense, was subsequently indicted when defendant was twenty-three-years-old on six charges of rape of a child with force and two charges of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen. At issue was whether a person who committed an offense at an age under 14, but who was not apprehended until after he or she had passed the age of 18, could be prosecuted. The court held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to try the person for that offense under G.L.c. 119, section 72A, after indictment, provided that a judge in the Juvenile Court had determined that there was probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged and that the interests of the public required that the person be tried for the offenses instead of being discharged. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Commonwealth v. Porges" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the enactment of St. 2010, c. 258, on August 7, 2010, which prohibited institutional lenders and certain financial institutions who owned foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without just cause. At issue was whether the act required dismissal of a no-cause summary process case that was already pending when the act went into effect, or whether the application of the act to such a case was impermissibly retroactive. The court held that the provision of the act that prevented eviction without just cause was properly applied to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act's effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date. Because the tenant, in this case, was still residing on the property on August 7, 2010, and the owner was seeking to evict him without just cause, the court held that the Housing Court judge properly applied the act to dismiss the pending claim for possession. View "Federal National Mortgage Assoc. v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought an action against defendant, seeking a refund of two cruise tickets they purchased and cancelled, and damages under G.L.c. 93A for unfair and deceptive trade practices. The court concluded that the evidence at trial plainly established that defendant violated the Attorney General's travel service regulations in two respects: fist, it failed to disclose the refund policy; and second, having violated the disclosure statement, it failed to refund the payments made by a cancelling customer within thirty days. These violations qualified as unfair or deceptive acts, and they caused plaintiffs a loss: the lack of a prompt refund of the ticket price. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' demand letter satisfied the requirements of G.L.c. 93A, section 9(3). The purposes of the demand letter were sufficiently fulfilled where it constituted fair notice of the claim and enabled defendant to make a reasonable tender of settlement. Accordingly, the judgment for defendant on plaintiffs' claims was reversed and the case remanded for the entry of judgment for plaintiffs and for determination of their damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs. View "Casavant & another v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd." on Justia Law

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines. Plaintiffs, parents who claim that they will be subject to higher child support orders as a consequence of the new guidelines, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the mandatory use of the new guidelines. Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal of their complaint where the Superior Court judge determined that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint and held that the declaratory judgment statute, G.L.c. 231A, prohibited any action for declaratory relief against the judicial department and plaintiffs would have an opportunity to challenge the new guidelines as applied in their individual cases. View "Fathers and Families, Inc. & others v. Chief Justice for Admin. and Mgmt. of the Trial Court & others" on Justia Law

A United States District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts ruled in this case that defendant misclassified as independent contractors those plaintiffs who were Massachusetts residents. The judge certified to this court questions related to calculation of damages for one such plaintiff. The certified questions related to whether, under Massachusetts law, an employer could use a system of customer accounts receivable financing to pay its employee at the time the customer paid the employer for the employee's work rather than when the work was performed; and whether, under the Massachusetts Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, section 148, 150, an employer and an employee could agree that the employee would pay the cost of workers' compensation and other work-related insurance coverage. The court held that the accounts receivable financing system at issue improperly deferred payment of the employee's earned wages, and that an employer could not deduct the insurance costs from an employee's earned wages. In response to the judge's invitation to provide additional guidance, the court also addressed the question whether defendant could deduct "franchise fees" from such wages, and concluded that the Wage Act forbade the deductions. View "Awuah & others v. Coverall North America, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, claiming that his failure to pay her a referral fee was a breach of contract and violated the Wage Act, G.L.c. 149, sections 148, 150. At issue was whether a 2008 amendment to the enforcement section of the Wage Act, providing for a mandatory award of treble damages to a prevailing employee, should be applied in an action brought by an employee against her employer for violation of the Wage Act before the amendment's effective date. The court held that the amendment should be read to apply only prospectively, to claims arising on or after the amendment's effective date of July 12, 2008. Therefore, because the Superior Court judge applied the amendment retrospectively, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Rosnov v. Molloy" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree of Elizabeth Lochtefeld based on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. Defendant appealed from his convictions and the denial of his amended motion for a new trial. The court held that flaws in the jury selection process required the reversal of his conviction. The court also noted that on remand, the Commonwealth should exercise care to avoid using defendant's exercise of his Miranda rights against him by suggesting that his invocations of or deliberations on these rights demonstrated his criminal responsibility. The court further noted that, at retrial, the judge should consider the application of Commonwealth v. Berry to the case in light of the particular evidence introduced and instruct the jury accordingly. Therefore, defendant's convictions were reversed, the verdicts set aside, and the case remanded for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Toolan" on Justia Law