Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case concerns an individual who, after responding to an online advertisement posted by an undercover police officer posing as two twenty-year-old women, learned that the supposed women were actually fifteen years old. Despite this, he continued to arrange a meeting for sexual services in exchange for money, drove from Massachusetts to Rhode Island, and was arrested upon arrival. He was found in possession of cocaine and ultimately pleaded nolo contendere in Rhode Island to indecent solicitation of a child, receiving a suspended sentence and probation. The individual also had a prior history of criminal justice involvement, including violations of abuse prevention orders and drug-related charges.Following his conviction, the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) issued a preliminary determination classifying him as a level two sex offender. After a de novo hearing, a SORB hearing examiner confirmed this classification, applying several risk-elevating factors, including targeting children, stranger victims, substance abuse, criminal justice contact, hostility towards women, and number of victims. The individual challenged the classification in the Massachusetts Superior Court, arguing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, particularly contesting the application of certain risk factors. The Superior Court denied his motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed the SORB decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case after transferring it from the Appeals Court. The court held that the hearing examiner did not abuse discretion in applying or weighing the challenged risk factors. However, the court found that the hearing examiner’s written decision was ambiguous regarding whether the individual’s information should be disseminated to the public, which is essential for determining the proper classification level. As a result, the Supreme Judicial Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to SORB for a clear, written conclusion on both the need for dissemination and the classification level. View "Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 528042 v. Sex Offender Registry Board" on Justia Law

A child was born in Connecticut in July 2024 to parents who both resided in Connecticut at the time of the birth. The mother, who had previously lived in Massachusetts and had a long history with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF), moved to Connecticut several months before the birth, enrolling in a Connecticut healthcare program and living in a domestic violence shelter there. The father had also been living in Connecticut. The Massachusetts DCF, concerned about the child’s welfare due to the mother’s history and a recent domestic violence incident involving the father, arranged to take emergency custody of the child at the Connecticut hospital immediately after birth.Two days after the child’s birth, the Massachusetts DCF filed a care and protection petition in the Hampden County Division of the Juvenile Court Department, seeking temporary custody. The Juvenile Court granted temporary custody to the department without determining the basis for jurisdiction. Later, after hearings, a Juvenile Court judge found that Massachusetts had default jurisdiction under the Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (MCCJA), and subsequently, after joint conferences with a Connecticut judge, concluded that Massachusetts was the appropriate forum because Connecticut had declined jurisdiction. The parents and the child sought interlocutory appeal, and the Appeals Court allowed it. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts then transferred the case on its own initiative.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction under the MCCJA because Connecticut was the child’s “home state,” as the child lived there from birth with the parents. The Court found that Massachusetts did not have default, emergency, or appropriate forum jurisdiction, as Connecticut had not declined jurisdiction before the Massachusetts court issued custody orders. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Care and Protection of Faraj" on Justia Law

A former Massachusetts State Police trooper retired in March 2018 after a 21-year career. While assigned to overtime patrol programs funded by federal grants, he falsely reported working over 700 overtime hours in 2015 and 2016, receiving more than $50,000 in unearned pay. He attempted to conceal his conduct by submitting falsified motor vehicle citations. In July 2018, he pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of embezzlement from an agency receiving federal funds, was sentenced to three months in prison, one year of supervised release, and ordered to pay restitution.Following his conviction, the State Board of Retirement suspended his pension and held a hearing. The hearing officer recommended, and the board adopted, a finding that under G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), the plaintiff and his beneficiaries were not entitled to any retirement benefits due to his conviction for an offense involving violation of laws applicable to his office. The board ordered the return of his accumulated contributions, less certain deductions. The plaintiff sought judicial review in the Massachusetts District Court, raising constitutional challenges under Article 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, arguing the forfeiture was an excessive fine and cruel or unusual punishment. The District Court judge entered judgment for the retirement board.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case on certiorari. It held that the pension forfeiture constituted a fine under Article 26 but was not excessive, adopting the United States Supreme Court’s multifactor analysis for excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The court also held that, even assuming Article 26’s cruel or unusual punishment provision applied to fines, the forfeiture was not cruel or unusual. The court affirmed the District Court’s judgment and the retirement board’s decision. View "Raftery v. State Board of Retirement" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, former tenants of apartments owned and managed by the defendants, filed a putative class action alleging that the defendants violated Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 186, Section 15B (4) (iii) by deducting charges for "reasonable wear and tear" from tenants' security deposits. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants included lease provisions requiring tenants to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the lease, which they argued was a violation of the same statute.The case was initially filed in the Superior Court and later removed to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs moved for class certification, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The Federal judge denied these motions without prejudice and certified two questions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts regarding the interpretation of the statute.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that a tenant's reasonable use of a property as a residence is expected to result in gradual deterioration, such as the need for painting, carpet repair, or similar refurbishment at the end of a lease. Deductions from a security deposit for such reasonable wear and tear violate the statute. Whether damage constitutes "reasonable wear and tear" is a fact-specific question depending on various circumstances, including the nature and cause of the damage, the condition of the property at the start of the lease, and the length of the occupancy.The court also held that a lease provision requiring a tenant to have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the lease, on penalty of bearing the costs of repairs regardless of whether the damage is reasonable wear and tear, conflicts with the statute. Such a provision is void and unenforceable under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 186, Section 15B (8). View "Peebles v. JRK Property Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2002, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to two concurrent life terms without parole. Following the 2024 decision in Commonwealth v. Mattis, which deemed life without parole for emerging adults unconstitutional, the defendant, who was 19 at the time of the crimes, sought resentencing to life with parole eligibility after 15 years and correction of his mittimus to reflect time served. The Commonwealth opposed and requested a hearing to determine if the sentences should be consecutive.The trial court granted the Commonwealth's request for a hearing, prompting the defendant to seek relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court reserved and reported the matter to the full court.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that double jeopardy principles do not prevent resentencing the defendant to consecutive life terms with parole eligibility after 15 years. The court reasoned that such a change would not increase the aggregate punishment, as the original sentence was life without parole. The court also determined that a resentencing hearing is necessary to decide whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, as the Mattis decision did not automatically alter the defendant's sentence.Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant is entitled to credit for time already served on each of the concurrent life sentences. Therefore, even if resentenced to consecutive terms, the defendant would be immediately eligible for parole, having already served over 23 years. The case was remanded for a resentencing hearing consistent with this opinion. View "Perez v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Cable Matters Inc. sought a use variance from the zoning board of appeals of Northborough to build a 20,000 square foot warehouse in an industrial zoning district. The property is also within the town's groundwater protection overlay district, which does not permit warehouses. The zoning board granted the variance, and the planning board later issued a special permit with conditions, including restrictions on storage, lighting, landscaping, delivery hours, and driveway use.The plaintiffs, who live across the street from the proposed warehouse, appealed the zoning board's decision to the Superior Court, arguing they were aggrieved by the potential noise, light, vibration, odors, and loss of open space. The Superior Court judge granted summary judgment for Cable Matters, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing as they failed to show they were aggrieved by the zoning board's decision. The judge found that the plaintiffs' claims were speculative and not supported by credible evidence.The plaintiffs appealed to the Appeals Court, which vacated the judgment, instructing the judge to consider potential future uses of the warehouse. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that the Superior Court judge correctly assessed the plaintiffs' standing based on Cable Matters's proposed use. The court held that potential future uses unsupported by the record should not be considered in determining standing. The court affirmed the Superior Court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing. View "Stone v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Northborough" on Justia Law

On November 4, 2015, a resident near a secluded dirt road in Worcester heard a loud bang and saw flames. Firefighters found a burning vehicle with a charred body inside, later identified as Marie Martin. An autopsy revealed a bullet in her skull. The investigation led to Donovan E. Goparian, who was indicted for murder. In 2020, a jury convicted him of first-degree murder based on deliberate premeditation. Goparian filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence from a Federal inmate implicating a third party. The motion judge denied the request for an evidentiary hearing and did not act on the request for postconviction discovery. The motion for a new trial was also denied.The defendant appealed both his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case. The court found that the judge abused his discretion by denying the defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing and failing to act on the request for postconviction discovery. The court concluded that the defendant had made an adequate showing that the Commonwealth had possession, custody, or control of the exculpatory information and that its nondisclosure could have prejudiced the defendant.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court vacated the order denying the motion for a new trial, reversed the order denying the request for an evidentiary hearing, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also ordered postconviction discovery concerning the exculpatory information and deferred plenary review of the defendant's direct appeal pending resolution of the motion for a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Goparian" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the stabbing death of Carlos Ramos in the apartment of Maria Samot, a key witness who is deaf, illiterate, and severely language deprived. Samot communicates using idiosyncratic gestures rather than any recognized language. At trial, her testimony was interpreted by a team of certified deaf and ASL interpreters, but no determination was made regarding the appropriateness of these interpreters as required by Massachusetts law (G. L. c. 221, § 92A). This led to significant issues during cross-examination, where Samot provided numerous nonresponsive answers.The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that justice had not been done due to noncompliance with the statute. The motion judge, who was also the trial judge, held an evidentiary hearing where experts testified about the extent of Samot's communication challenges and the inadequacy of the interpretation provided at trial. The judge found that the failure to make the required determination under § 92A raised a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice and allowed the motion for a new trial. The Commonwealth appealed.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the defendant had the right to challenge the admission of Samot's testimony due to the statutory violation. The court found that the failure to make the required determination under § 92A was an error that prejudiced the defendant, as it affected the accuracy of the interpretation and the ability to cross-examine the witness effectively. The court concluded that the judge did not abuse her discretion in granting a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Lozada" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle after his license had been revoked. The revocation was due to a prior conviction for motor vehicle homicide and operating under the influence (OUI). The defendant argued that his motion to dismiss the complaint should have been allowed because the citation was not issued at the time and place of the violation, as required by the "no-fix" statute. The police learned of the violation weeks later through a television news report and issued the citation after investigating the report.In the Dedham Division of the District Court Department, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied. The judge found that additional time was reasonably necessary to investigate the violation. The defendant's motion for reconsideration was also denied. At trial, the judge found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to eighteen months in a house of correction. The defendant appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the delay in issuing the citation was justified because additional time was reasonably necessary to investigate the violation. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle after his license had been revoked and before it was restored. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the penalty only applied during the pendency of the revocation period, clarifying that the penalty continues to apply until the license or right to operate is restored. The judgment was affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Foley" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with carrying a firearm without a license, carrying a loaded firearm without a license, and possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card following a traffic stop where police found a loaded firearm in his pocket. At trial, the Commonwealth sought to prove the defendant lacked a license to carry a firearm through the testimony of a Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) employee. The employee testified that a search of the DCJIS-maintained Statewide database using the defendant's name and a birth date provided by the district attorney's office returned no results. However, the judge did not admit the testimony regarding the birth date as evidence of the defendant's actual birth date due to the witness's lack of personal knowledge, and the Commonwealth did not introduce other evidence establishing the defendant's birth date.The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty and convicted him of possessing a firearm without a license and possessing ammunition without a firearm identification card. The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's proof of nonlicensure and arguing that the testimony violated his right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that a witness testifying about a search of a public records database must be familiar with the process of searching the database and the government record-keeping practices. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting the DCJIS employee's testimony. However, the court concluded that the Commonwealth's proof of lack of licensure was insufficient because it did not introduce evidence that the birth date used to search the database was the defendant's actual birth date. Consequently, the court reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded for entry of judgments in favor of the defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Smith" on Justia Law