Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In January 2018, Shaquille Browder was shot and killed in a parking lot in Boston. Ralph Brown was indicted and convicted of first-degree murder based on deliberate premeditation. Brown appealed, claiming errors by judges and the prosecutor, and insufficient evidence of his guilt.The Superior Court denied Brown's pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained from search warrants for a vehicle's infotainment system and his cell phone's location data. The court found no material misstatements or intent to deceive in the affidavits supporting the warrants. Brown's motion to dismiss the indictments, alleging grand jury impairment due to improper statements by a detective, was also denied. The court ruled that the statements did not influence the grand jury's decision to indict.The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case and upheld Brown's conviction. The court found that the evidence, including surveillance footage, cell phone records, and vehicle rental information, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The court also addressed Brown's claims of improper jury empanelment and prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. It concluded that any errors in voir dire questions about motive did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. The court determined that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments were permissible and did not shift the burden of proof or misstate facts.The court affirmed Brown's conviction of first-degree murder but vacated his convictions for carrying a firearm without a license and carrying a loaded firearm, remanding for further proceedings consistent with recent case law. View "Commonwealth v. Brown" on Justia Law

In the early morning of August 10, 2014, the defendant entered an apartment in Lowell and fatally shot two occupants. He was convicted of felony-murder, armed home invasion, and possession of a firearm without a license. The defendant appealed, raising several arguments.The Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty of felony-murder, armed home invasion, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant argued that the jury should have been instructed that the Commonwealth needed to prove the absence of mitigating circumstances for felony-murder, that the prosecutor improperly appealed to emotion, that the judge prejudged the sentences, and that defense counsel was ineffective for not presenting mitigating information at sentencing. The defendant also contended that his convictions for armed home invasion and firearm possession should be vacated.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court vacated the armed home invasion conviction as duplicative of the felony-murder conviction and vacated the firearm possession conviction due to improper jury instructions regarding the burden of proof for licensure. The court remanded the firearm charge for further proceedings. The court affirmed the felony-murder convictions, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances, no improper appeals to emotion by the prosecutor, and no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice due to the judge's sentencing comments or defense counsel's performance. The court also declined to exercise its authority to reduce the verdicts under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Poum" on Justia Law

Three juveniles, Frederick F., Angela A., and Manolo M., were adjudicated delinquent on charges of resisting arrest. The events occurred on October 3, 2019, near Brockton High School, where a large crowd of students had gathered, leading to multiple altercations. Frederick yelled profanities at police officers and refused to leave the area, Angela recorded officers with her cell phone while yelling at them, and Manolo attempted to punch an officer and engaged in a physical struggle.The Juvenile Court denied Frederick's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause and denied all three juveniles' motions for required findings of not delinquent. The Appeals Court affirmed the adjudications for resisting arrest but vacated Manolo's adjudication for assault and battery on a police officer due to an error in jury instructions.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the adjudications for resisting arrest. For Frederick, the court found that the circumstances provided a basis for a good-faith judgment to arrest him for disorderly conduct. For Angela, the court concluded that her conduct of thrusting her cell phone within inches of officers' faces and resisting arrest by pulling away constituted the use of physical force. For Manolo, the court determined that his physical struggle with officers on the ground, following his aggressive actions, provided sufficient evidence of using physical force to resist arrest.The court affirmed the adjudications of delinquency for resisting arrest for all three juveniles and remanded for further proceedings on Manolo's vacated adjudication for assault and battery on a police officer. View "Commonwealth v. Manolo M." on Justia Law

The case involves the Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund (MIIF) seeking cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) payment reimbursements from the Workers' Compensation Trust Fund (trust fund). MIIF, a nonprofit entity created by statute, administers and pays certain claims against insolvent insurers. Between 1989 and 2013, MIIF paid workers' compensation benefits, including COLA payments, on behalf of several insolvent insurers. MIIF filed claims with the trust fund for reimbursement of these payments, but the trust fund denied the claims, arguing that MIIF is not an "insurer" under the relevant statutes and does not participate in the trust fund.The Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) administrative judge denied MIIF's claims, and the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board (board) affirmed the decision. The board relied on the Appeals Court's decision in Home Ins. Co. v. Workers' Compensation Trust Fund, concluding that MIIF, like the insolvent insurers, does not collect and transmit assessments to the trust fund and is therefore not entitled to reimbursement.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and concluded that MIIF is eligible for COLA-payment reimbursements. The court determined that MIIF, when taking on an insolvent insurer's covered claims, is "deemed the insurer" and has "all rights, duties, and obligations" of the insolvent insurer under G. L. c. 175D, § 5 (1) (b). The court also found that the plain language of the relevant statutes does not exclude MIIF from reimbursement eligibility and that the trust fund's funding mechanism, which is paid for by employers, supports MIIF's entitlement to reimbursement.The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the board's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Massachusetts Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Workers' Compensation Trust Fund" on Justia Law

An insurer, Arrowood Indemnity Company, entered run-off in 2003, ceasing to issue new policies but continuing to manage existing claims, including workers' compensation for a Scully Signal Company employee who sustained a second work-related injury in 2001. Arrowood sought second-injury reimbursements from the Massachusetts Workers' Compensation Trust Fund, which reimburses insurers for a portion of workers' compensation benefits paid to employees with exacerbated injuries. Arrowood and the Trust Fund settled in 2009, with Arrowood receiving reimbursements until 2013.The Department of Industrial Accidents (DIA) began denying Arrowood's reimbursement requests in 2015, citing a precedent that insurers in run-off, who no longer collect and transmit employer assessments to the Trust Fund, are ineligible for reimbursements. Arrowood's subsequent complaint in Superior Court was dismissed, and the Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal, directing Arrowood to seek administrative review. The DIA administrative judge and the Industrial Accident Reviewing Board upheld the denial, leading Arrowood to appeal to the Appeals Court.The Appeals Court reversed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory language of the Massachusetts workers' compensation act does not preclude insurers in run-off from receiving second-injury reimbursements. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted further appellate review and agreed with the Appeals Court. The Court held that the plain language of the act does not exclude insurers in run-off from reimbursement eligibility and that the statutory scheme supports this interpretation. The Court reversed the Board's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Workers' Compensation Trust Fund" on Justia Law