Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court suspended Respondent, Judge Paul M. Sushchyk, without pay for a reasonable time or until further order of this court for Respondent's non-consensual touching of a trial court employee and misconduct during an ensuing investigation, holding that a sanction was warranted.After an evidentiary hearing and the receipt of a hearing officer's report, the Commission on Judicial Conduct concluded that Respondent had engaged in an intentional and unwelcome touching of an employee while at a court-sponsored event and then providing inconsistent and knowingly false statements during the resulting investigation and hearing. The Supreme Court accepted the Commission's recommendation that Respondent by censured publicly and suspended without pay for a reasonable time to permit the executive and legislative branches to consider whether Respondent should retain his judicial office. View "In re Sushchyk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court judge denying a child's motion to dismiss a petition filed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 39E by an assistant school principal, holding that the assistant principle did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law by filing and pursuing the petition.In the petition, the assistant principle asserted that the child required assistance because the child had been habitually truant from school. The child moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the assistant principle, a nonattorney, was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the assistant principle did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law under the circumstances of this case. View "Lexington Public Schools v. K.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possessing a firearm without a license and possessing a large capacity feeding device, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the firearm and the attached large capacity feeding device as the fruits of a warrantless search and that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; and (2) there was sufficient evidence that Defendant possessed the firearm in question. View "Commonwealth v. DeJesus" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county count summarily denying Appellant's request to transfer to the Supreme Court a civil action currently pending in the superior court, holding that there was no error.In the pending superior court case, a judge denied Appellant's motion to enjoin an imminent foreclosure and then dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court of appeals reversed the dismissal. Appellant eventually filed a petition with the county court seeking a transfer to the Superior Court, alleging that she could not get a fair hearing in the superior court. The single justice treated the petition as one seeking relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and then denied relief without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that relief was properly denied. View "Sharma v. County Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and a firearm offense, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.At trial against four codefendants, the Commonwealth proceeded on a theory that Defendant was liable for the victim's death in this case as an accomplice. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the murder charge against Defendant but convicted him of a firearm offense and of resisting arrest. After a subsequent joint trial, a second jury convicted Defendant of murder. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the murder conviction and the firearm conviction; (2) the judge did not err in its instructions on accomplice liability; (3) in the second trial, there was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice in the judge's decision precluding Defendant from contesting the sufficiency of the evidence as to his firearm conviction on estoppel grounds; and (4) this Court declines to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant Defendant a new trial or reduce the conviction to a lesser degree of guilt. View "Commonwealth v. Bonner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court allowing Defendant's second motion for a new trial based on constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, holding that Defendant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the sole issue of trial counsel's performance. Before an evidentiary hearing was held on remand, Defendant's appellate counsel filed a second motion for a new trial on the ground that trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The trial court allowed the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was an abuse of discretion to hold that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. View "Commonwealth v. Ng" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, entered after a second trial, of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; (2) Defendant's claims of error regarding the trial court's evidentiary rulings were unavailing; (3) there was nothing improper in the prosecutor's closing argument; (4) the judge's instruction on accessory after the fact was not improper; (5) Defendant was not denied the right to a fair trial when a codefendant attacked him as the verdicts were being read; and (6) there is no reason to reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to revoke and revoke his sentence, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's denial.Defendant pleaded guilty to firearm offense. While he was serving a suspended sentence, Defendant stipulated to violating the conditions of his probation and was resentenced with additional conditions of probation. Defendant filed a motion to revise and revoke his sentence, which the motion judge denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's stipulation to probation violations and agreement to waive a probation violation hearing were knowing and voluntary; and (2) Defendant's appeal from his sentence of probation is dismissed as untimely. View "Commonwealth v. Santana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for violating an abuse prevention order, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A, 7, the statute under which Defendant was convicted, violated separation of powers because it vests the executive branch with the power to enforce judicially-issued abuse prevention orders; (2) the Massachusetts and United States Constitutions prohibited his criminal punishment for violating an abuse prevention order that was issued when he was uncounselled and afforded no right to court-appointed counsel; and (3) alternatively, there were abuses of discretion in several of the trial judge's rulings. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) chapter 209A, section 7 is constitutional under separation of powers principles; (2) neither the state nor the federal Constitution is violated where a constitutionally permissible proceeding provides a predicate for a subsequent incarcerate offense; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's challenged rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Dufresne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the ruling of the superior court entering declaratory judgment in favor of the city council of Springfield and held that the city council may reorganize the Springfield police department based on the plain language of the relevant statutes and city ordinances.At issue was whether the city council had the authority to reorganize the police department to be headed by a five-person board of police commissioners rather than a single commission under the provisions of the Springfield city charter passed in accordance with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 43, 46-55. After the mayor refused to implement the city council's ordinance restructuring the police department the city council brought this action. The court entered a judgment declaring that the mayor must appoint qualified individuals to serve on the board. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the ordinance was clearly within the scope of the city council's power to reorganize municipal departments; and (2) there was no separation of powers problem in this case. View "City Council of Springfield v. Mayor of Springfield" on Justia Law