Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for deliberately premeditated murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm and declined to exercise its authority to grant extraordinary relief, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence that law enforcement officers found illegal narcotics in a vehicle occupied by the victim and in the victim's clothing and that the judge's ruling "deprived the defense of the plausible alternative theory that rival drug dealers committed the murder." The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidentiary error in the proceedings below; (2) as to the firearm conviction, the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on licensure requirements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the verdict of murder in the first degree was consonant with justice and should stand. View "Commonwealth v. Bookman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of deliberately premeditated murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm and declined to exercise its extraordinary authority pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant his a new trial or to reduce his first-degree murder conviction to a lesser degree of guilt, holding that there was no error or reason to disturb the verdicts.Together with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. Defendant, who was also convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge erroneously excluded evidence that supported a third-party culprit defense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge's exclusion of certain evidence did not deprive the defense "of the plausible alternative theory that rival drug dealers were responsible for the murder"; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing introduction of testimony that the codefendant possessed a firearm eight months before the shooting; and (3) there was no reason to order a new trial or to reduce the degree of guilt as to the conviction of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Acevedo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B claims, holding that tolling does not apply to the time limits established in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 5, including the requirement that claims be pursued by first filing a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) "within 300 days after the alleged act of discrimination."Approximately one year after his termination, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the MCAD alleging sexual harassment, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4 (16A), and retaliation, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 4. Plaintiff later amended his complaint to add his chapter 151B claims. The motion judge granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, reasoning that this Court's emergency orders issued during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic applied only to courts, not the MCAD, and that equitable tolling did not apply. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that tolling did not apply to the time limits in this case. View "Dunn v. Langevin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that in the instant cases, where the decedents had no right to bring a cause of action for the injuries that caused their deaths at the time that they died as a result of the running of the statute of limitations on the decedents' underlying tort and breach of warranty claims, Plaintiffs, as personal representatives of the decedents' estates, had no right to bring wrongful death actions based on those injuries.The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts dismissing these separate actions for wrongful death under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, 2. Both superior court judges ruled that, because wrongful death recovery is derivative of a decedent's own cause of action, the underlying wrongful death claims were precluded, as each decedent could not have brought claims based on the injuries that caused his death had he survived. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, thus following the majority approach precluding recovery for wrongful death where the statute of limitations on the decedent's underlying claims ran before the decedent's death. View "Fabiano v. Philip Morris USA Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and sentence of life without parole, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error and that there was no reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the police officers who arrested him; (2) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's request for a mental impairment jury instruction; (3) testimony by the Commonwealth's fingerprint analysis expert was not improper; and (4) this Court discerns no reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court answered a reported question in the affirmative and held that a "guilty-filed" disposition constitutes a predicate "offense" under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 30A.Defendant was charged with shoplifting, third offense, in violation of section 30A. Defendant moved to dismiss so much of the complaint that alleged a third offense on the grounds that the disposition in one of the predicate offenses on which the Commonwealth relied in support of the third offense portion of the charge was a guilty-filed disposition after Defendant pleaded guilty. The district court judge reported to the appeals court the requisition of whether a guilty-filed disposition constitutes a predicate offense under section 30A, after which Defendant entered a conditional plea to shoplifting. The Supreme Judicial Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that a guilty-filed disposition constitutes an offense under section 30A. View "Commonwealth v. Mcneil" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the circumstances of the underlying case, the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 30106, protected an automobile dealership from being held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the driver of its courtesy vehicle.An automobile dealership based in New Jersey provided a courtesy vehicle to a customer while it serviced the customer's vehicle in its automobile service center. Contrary to the terms of the courtesy vehicle agreements, the customer drove the vehicle beyond the permitted radius of travel and into the Commonwealth, where the vehicle struck one of the plaintiffs, causing serious injuries. Plaintiffs brought a negligence action against the dealership and the customer. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that the dealership, as the owner of the courtesy vehicle, was presumptively vicariously liable for the injuries caused by the customer's wife. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment for the dealership and vacated the judgment for the customer, holding (1) the Graves Amendment protected the dealership from liability in this case; and (2) there was a dispute of material fact as to the negligent entrustment claim against the customer. View "Garcia v. Steele" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the trial justice erred when he failed to instruct the jury on the impact of mental impairment and intoxication on whether Defendant acted in a cruel or atrocious manner, and this error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty for the death of a woman who died from multiple chop wounds from a machete. On appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, Defendant argued that the trial justice erred by failing to provide two jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial justice did not err by omitting Defendant's requested instructions on sudden combat but did err in failing to give an instruction on mental impairment as it related to extreme atrocity or cruelty, and the error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Miranda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court denying the Commonwealth's motion to revise Juvenile's sentence in this case, holding that a juvenile court judge may commit a youthful offender to the custody of the Department of Youth Services (DYS) until his twenty-first birthday and then suspend that commitment with conditions of probation.Pursuant to a plea agreement, the juvenile court judge adjudicated Juvenile to be a youthful offender. The judge ordered Juvenile committed to DYS until he reached the age of twenty-one and then suspended the commitment with conditions of probation until the day before Juvenile's twenty-first birthday. The Commonwealth moved for a revision of Juvenile's sentence, challenging the judge's decision to suspend Juvenile's commitment to DYS and to place him on probation, but the judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile was within his discretion in suspending Juvenile's commitment pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 87. View "Commonwealth v. Dones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the decision of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this age discrimination action, holding that Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to create a dispute of fact regarding whether he was terminated due to discriminatory animus.Plaintiff sued Defendant, his former employer, after he was laid off in a reduction in force. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, determining that Plaintiff could not show that Defendant's stated justification for his termination was pretextual. The appeals court reversed. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case to the superior court for further proceedings, holding that Plaintiff produced evidence from which a jury could find that he was selected for the reduction in force as part of a corporate strategy to lay off older workers. View "Adams v. Schneider Electric USA" on Justia Law