Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty for the killing of his wife, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the prosecutor did not improperly exercise a peremptory challenge to strike a male juror; (2) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in connection with certain evidentiary decisions; (3) the prosecutor's challenged statements in his closing argument did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (4) the jury instruction on mental impairment was sufficient; (5) the denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial did not constitute an abuse of discretion; and (6) this Court declines to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws 278, 33E, to order a new trial or a reduction in the verdict. View "Commonwealth v. Huang" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after surveillance was conducted at Defendant's apartment building via a hidden video camera placed on a nearby public utility pole, holding that although the pole camera surveillance constituted a warrantless search under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, it was nevertheless constitutional.Defendant was indicted on child pornography charges. After the surveillance at issue in this case took place but before the superior court decided Defendant's motion to suppress, Commonwealth v. Mora, 485 Mass. 360 (2020) was decided. In Mora, the Supreme Judicial Court decided that pole camera surveillance could, under certain circumstances, constitute a search requiring a warrant. After the motion to suppress in this case was decided, Defendant brought an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) the pole camera surveillance constituted a search; but (2) probable cause existed to conduct the pole camera surveillance prior to the time the search began. View "Commonwealth v. Comenzo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Defendant was sentenced on the murder conviction to a term of life in State prison, to be served after his sentence for assault and battery. On appeal, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no reversible error in the trial proceedings and that there was no reason for this Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce or set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Denson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the appropriate standard of proof by which the Department would have to prove that it had made "reasonable efforts to make it possible for the child to return safely to his [or her] parent or guardian" under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 29C is proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence.The parties in this case jointly petitioned for clarification of the standard by which the Department would have to prove that it has made reasonable efforts. The Department argued that the standard of proof should be fair preponderance of the evidence, and the child at issue and its mother argued for a more demanding clear and convincing evidence standard. The Supreme Judicial Court declared that, at a reasonable efforts hearing, the Department's burden is to prove that it has made reasonable efforts by a preponderance of the evidence. View "In re Care & Protection of Rashida" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court judge denying Defendant's motion to suppress a video recording Defendant published to his social media account that showed an individual seen from the chest down holding what appeared to be a firearm, holding that no search in the constitutional sense occurred.After accepting a friend request from an undercover police officer, Defendant published the video at issue to his social media account. The officer made a recording of the posting, and that recording was used in the criminal proceedings against Defendant. The trial judge concluded that no search had occurred and denied Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in his social media stories. View "Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed in part and remanded in part the judgment of the superior court declaring that the construction of "regular compensation" set out in Public Employee Retirement Administration Comm'n v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Bd., 478 Mass. 832 (2018) (Vernava), is not limited to accidental disability retirement under Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch, 32, 7 and remanded for an order of dismissal of count two of the complaint, holding that no actual controversy was raised as to the second issue.At issue was whether the term "regular compensation" defined in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 1 excludes vacation or sick leave pay used to supplement workers' compensation payments. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the interpretation of "regular compensation" in Vernava applies consistently across uses of the term in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 5-7, thereby applying to superannuation, ordinary disability, and accidental disability retirement, and does so retroactively; and (2) no actual controversy was raised by the abstract issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies in hypothetical disputes over future Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission memoranda interpreting appellate opinions. View "Worcester Regional Retirement Board v. Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for two counts of armed assault with intent to murder and other crimes, holding that denying superior court defendants the statutory right to a defendant-capped plea does not violate equal protection principles under either the Federal or State Constitutions.Defendant was charged, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced in the superior court. Defendant sought to withdraw his plea on the basis of a facial challenge to the procedural scheme laid out in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 18 and rule 12(c)(4)(A), arguing that denying superior court defendants the statutory right to a defendant-capped plea violates constitutional equal protection principles. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the procedural scheme of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 18 and Mass. R. Crim. P. 12 survives rational basis scrutiny. View "Commonwealth v. Roman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated and set aside the order of expungement in this case, holding that a judge ordering expungement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K must employ a two-part procedure.At issue was whether a judge ordering expungement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(a) may expunge a record solely because doing so is in the best interests of justice pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(b) and thus skip the conditions enumerated in section 100K(a). The judge in this case issued an order allowing Petitioner's petition for expungement. The Supreme Court vacated and set aside the order and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding (1) a judge ordering expungement must make findings based on clear and convincing evidence that the relevant criminal record was created because of one or more of the reasons listed in section 100K(a); and (2) after making such findings a judge may consider whether expungement would be in "the best interests of justice" under section 100K(b). View "In re Expungement" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court judge denying Juvenile's motion to continue his arraignment for a competency evaluation and denying Juvenile's petition for expungement pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(a)(5), holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.In two separate cases, Juvenile was charged with several offenses, including multiple counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Prior to arraignment, Juvenile filed a motion to continue so that he could undergo a competency evaluation and also filed a motion to dismiss. The judge denied the motions. Following an evaluation of Juvenile, the judge determined that Juvenile was incompetent to stand trial and was unlikely to become competent within the foreseeable future. The judge then dismissed all pending charges. Juvenile filed petition for expungement, which the juvenile court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Juvenile was not eligible for expungement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 276, 100K(a)(5), and therefore, the juvenile court judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Juvenile's petition. View "Commonwealth v. Carson C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and the denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that there was no prejudicial error or reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.In his motion for a new trial, Defendant asserted that he located a newly available witness who would provide impeachment evidence against one of the Commonwealth's key witnesses. The motion judge denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the judge erred in allowing the admission of certain testimony, and that the judge erroneously denied his request for a continuance and motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Gibson" on Justia Law