Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing as moot Father's petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.The Department of Children and Families filed a care and protection petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 24 after the child in this case tested positive at birth for drugs. Thereafter, temporary custody was granted to Father. Father filed a motion to dismiss the petition for temporary custody on the grounds that there was no need for judicial intervention. The judge denied the order. Thereafter, Father brought his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. While the petition was pending, the juvenile court dismissed the care and protection case. On that basis, the single justice dismissed Father's as moot Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that this Court declines to exercise its discretion to consider Father's appeal notwithstanding the fact that it was moot. View "In re Care & Protection of a Minor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and reversed in part Defendant's firearm-related convictions, holding that there was probable cause to search the glove department of Defendant's car but that the judge erred in not instructing the jury on the licensure exemption set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10.After receiving a tip from a confidential informant Boston police officers searched Defendant's vehicle without a warrant and discovered a loaded firearm and large capacity magazine in the glove compartment. At issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in not instructing the jury on either of the two exemptions contained in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) in order to convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a firearm due process requires the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant did not have a valid firearms license, and therefore, Defendant's convictions of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition could not stand; and (2) because there is no constitutional right to possess a large capacity magazine, Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a large capacity feeding device is affirmed. View "Commonwealth v. Guardado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court adjudicating Appellant delinquent on two charges of attempting to burn a public building, holding that that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 5A, the attempted arson statute, is a specific intent crime.Appellant was arraigned in the juvenile court after he performed the TikTok "penny challenge" twice at his school, leading to his adjudication. On appeal, Appellant argued that section 5A requires proof of specific intent and that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the specific intent to burn or set fire to the building. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) attempt to burn a public building is a specific intent crime; and (2) the evidence demonstrated that Appellant specifically intended his conduct and its consequences. View "Commonwealth v. Qasim Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial judge revoking Defendant's probation and sentencing him to two years in a house of correction followed by one year of probation, holding that the wiretap statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, did not preclude the use of born-worn camera footage at Defendant's probation violation proceeding.While on probation for assault and battery and for violating an abuse prevention order Defendant forcibly entered his girlfriend's residence over her objection and assaulted her. After a domestic disturbance call, police officers arrived at the victim's residence. One officer activated his body-worn camera before entering the premise and captured audio-visual footage of the victim's reporting of the events that had transpired, the state of her home within his plain view, and his interview with the victim's daughters. At issue was whether the wiretap statute precluded the use of the body-worn camera footage at the probation violating proceeding or whether the recording violated Defendant's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Rainey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments of probation entered in separate superior court cases stemming from the same adjudication, holding that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation.After a hearing, the hearing justice found that Defendant had violated the terms of his probation in two cases and removed three and a half years suspension on each sentence in those cases. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation. View "Carver v. Commissioner of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded this matter to the Commissioner of Correction in this appeal from the denial of medical parole, holding that the Commissioner's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it was made without the benefit of a standardized risk assessment required by Title 501 Code Mass. Regs. 17.02.Appellant, a sixty-six-year-old man serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in connection with his first-degree murder conviction, petitioned for medical parole under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 127, 119A arguing that he was permanently incapacitated and unlikely to return to violating the law if released. The Commissioner denied the request, determining that there was not a "significant and material" change in Plaintiff's circumstances. Plaintiff then commenced this action pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, 4. A superior court denied the motion, finding that the Commissioner's decision was reasonable. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the Commissioner's decision to deny Plaintiff medical parole was erroneous because a risk assessment was not conducted on him. View "McCauley v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution, Norfolk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the single justice of the appeals court reversing the denial of Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and vacated the injunction, holding that the single justice abused her discretion in enjoining Defendants from enforcing their December 2021 amended COVID-19 vaccination policy.Plaintiffs - the Boston Firefighters Union, the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation, and others - filed a complaint challenging Defendants' unilateral amendment of the COVID-19 vaccination policy for all city of Boston employees, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The superior court denied Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief, but a single justice of the appeals court reversed and ordered the entry of a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the single justice abused her discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction because the potential harm to the city resulting from the spread of COVID-19 clearly outweighed the economic harm to employees. View "Boston Firefighters Union, Local 718, Internat'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO v. City of Boston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the articulable facts combined to establish reasonable suspicion that Defendant had committed armed robbery.At issue was whether information known to other investigating officers may be imputed to the officer who initiated the stop under the collective knowledge doctrine. The superior court judge denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a stop, concluding that the officer who conducted an investigatory stop on Defendant had adequate reasonable suspicion to do so. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, with or without the imputed knowledge, the officer who stopped Defendant had reasonable suspicion to do so. View "Commonwealth v. Privette" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition filed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, 5 seeking relief in the nature of mandamus, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief.Petitioner brought this action against the executive director of the Board of Registration in Medicine, acting in his official capacity, and timely served his complaint upon the Board. Petitioner, however, did not also serve the office of the Attorney General, as required under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). The superior court denied the petition. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a request for entry of default. The superior court denied the request for failure to certify compliance with Rule 9A of the Superior Court. Petitioner then brought the instant petition requesting that the superior court clerk be compelled to enter a default against the Board. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, because the Board was an agency of the Commonwealth, the office of the Attorney General must be served in order to perfect service of process under Rule 4(d)(3). View "Padmanabhan v. Executive Director of the Bd. of Registration in Medicine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the superior court judge allowing the State police's motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's request for back pay under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, 59 (the Perry Law), holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to back pay or other relief under the terms of the Perry Law.Perry Law mandates back pay for a State employee who has been indicted on criminal charges due to job-related misconduct and, consequently, suspended from his position without pay if the charges are subsequently terminated without a finding or verdict of guilty. At issue was whether Plaintiff, who had been suspended from his position without pay pursuant to article 6.2 of the State police rules and regulations, was entitled to back pay under the Perry Law. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) when the colonel of the State police opted to suspend Plaintiff, he had discretion to choose whether to invoke the Perry Law or to proceed under article 6.2, which is unique to the State police; and (2) because the colonel decided to suspend Plaintiff in accordance with article 6.2 Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under the Perry Law. View "Perez v. Dep't of State Police" on Justia Law