Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction of possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, carrying a loaded firearm without a license, and resisting arrest. At issue was whether the court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress and properly convicted him. The court affirmed the denial of defendant's motion and held that there was no error in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence where the firearm was recovered as a result of a lawful seizure of his person; there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions of resisting arrest to and unlawful possession of a firearm where he charged at officers and used physical force against one officer; and there was no merit to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to suppress his statement in response to an officer where there was sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have could have inferred that he knew that the two men following him were police officers and that the police wished to stop him. The court also held that defendant's right to bear arms and to self-defense under the Second Amendment and his equal protection guarantees under Federal and State Constitutions were not violated.

The mother of a child who was the subject of care and protection in a proceeding in Juvenile Court appealed from a judgment denying her petition for relief from an order placing the child in temporary custody of the Department of Children and Families ("department"). At issue was whether the denial of extraordinary relief was an abuse of discretion or an error of law. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the judge's findings clearly supported her determination where the department made reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of the child by placing the mother in two successive foster homes to help her learn better parenting skills and there was no reason to believe that a third placement would have been more successful. The court also held that the judge did not err in holding that the child was suffering from serious abuse or neglect in the mother's custody.