Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10(n), holding that the holding in Commonwealth v. Brown, 479 Mass. 600 (2018) that the Commonwealth must prove Defendant knew that the gun was loaded in order to establish a violation of the statute, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.Defendant was convicted of several crimes and of a sentencing enhancement for two prior violent crimes under the Massachusetts armed career criminal act (ACCA), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10G. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of conviction under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 269, 10(n) and vacated so much of the judgment of conviction as pertains to the predicate offense of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon as to the ACCA charge, holding (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of carrying a loaded firearm; and (2) for Defendant's conviction of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon to count as a predicate offense for purposes of the ACCA the Commonwealth must use the modified categorical approach to prove Defendant was convicted of such a crime. View "Commonwealth v. Ashford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 85, 17A, sometimes referred to as the panhandling statute, is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment to the federal constitution and article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, as amended, because the statute is a content-based regulation of protected speech in a public forum that cannot withstand strict scrutiny.Under the statute, a person who signals, stops, or accosts a motor vehicle or its occupants on a public way if undertaken for the purpose of panhandling, is subject to criminal prosecution or a fine. The statute, however, exempts the same conduct if undertaken for the purpose of selling newspapers or raising money for a nonprofit organization. Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting that the statute is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment and article 16. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 85, 17A is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment and article 16 because it is both over- and underinclusive with respect to the purpose it is intended to serve, is not narrowly tailored, and cannot withstand strict scrutiny. View "Massachusetts Coalition for Homeless v. City of Fall River" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of three counts of murder in the first degree, one count of armed assault with intent to murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm and declined to order a new trial or reduce the degrees of guilt under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting prior bad act evidence or in allowing the substantive use of prior inconsistent grand jury testimony by one trial witness; (2) there was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice from trial counsel's decision not to attempt to impeach one witness with his prior grand jury testimony; and (3) impermissible comments made by the prosecutor during cross-examination of Defendant did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice or constitute impermissible burden shifting. View "Commonwealth v. Pierre" on Justia Law

In these two cases in which Defendants sought stays of execution of their sentences pending appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court provided additional guidance as to how judges who are faced with requests for stays should take into account the COVID-19 pandemic as a factor in determining whether a stay is appropriate in any given case.In Daniel Nash's case, the trial judge granted a stay, which a single justice of the Appeals Court vacated. In Joseph Elibert's case, the trial court granted a stay but later revoked it, and a single justice of the Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgments of the Appeals Court single justice in each case after addressing the procedural issues concerning these cases, holding that both defendants were entitled to a stay. View "Commonwealth v. Nash" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of distribution of a class A controlled substance and committing the crime within one hundred feet of a public park, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal were unavailing.Defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty, claiming, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence proving that the area was a public park within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32J. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to find that the park at issue was a park within the meaning of section 32J; and (2) although the judge's instructions did not include a definition of a "public park," the instructions did not result in a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Ramos-Cabrera" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Civil Defense Act (CDA), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 17, 2A, provided the Governor with the authority for his March 10, 2020 declaration of a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and for his issuance of the emergency orders and that the emergency orders did not violate article 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights or Plaintiffs' federal or state constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process or free assembly.Plaintiffs brought this complaint seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the Governor's declaration of a state of emergency and the emergency orders placing restrictions on daily activities as unauthorized and unconstitutional. The Supreme Judicial Court denied relief, holding that Plaintiffs' claims were unavailing and that the emergency orders were authorized and constitutional. View "Desrosiers v. The Governor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction for committing the crime of distribution of cocaine within one hundred feet of a public park in connection with a sale of the controlled substance to an undercover officer, holding that the Commonwealth failed to prove that the area in question was a "public park" for purposes of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, 32J.On appeal, Defendant argued that the Commonwealth provided insufficient evidence that the park at issue was public within the meaning of the statute. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that the section 32J conviction could not stand because there was no evidence that Defendant was within one hundred feet of an area owned or maintained by a governmental entity. View "Commonwealth v. Boger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice denying Defendant's petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking to remove the conditions of GPS monitoring and home confinement on Defendant's release, holding that the conditions were constitutional.Defendant was convicted of trafficking narcotics. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial and sought to stay the execution of her sentence while her motion was pending. The trial judge granted the stay and imposed the conditions of release at issue. Defendant then filed a petition in the county court seeking relief from the conditions. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the condition of home confinement was not a seizure because it was imposed pursuant to a valid conviction and lawful sentence; and (2) the imposition of GPS monitoring was a search, but it was reasonable under the circumstances. View "Garcia v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and improper disposition of a human body, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his cell site information (CSLI) because it was obtained by police without a warrant and that a subsequent search pursuant to a warrant for the same information was tainted by the initial warrantless search. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in failing to suppress Defendant's CSLI, and the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial and for an evidentiary hearing on this same basis; (2) trial counsel's failure to move to suppress the fruits of the initial illegal search did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (3) there was no reason to grant a new trial or set aside the jury's verdict under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony murder, with armed robbery as the predicate felony, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial judge did not err by not providing, sua sponte, an instruction on felony murder in the second degree; (2) the admission of Defendant's cell site location information did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion to admit privileged psychiatric records; (4) there was no prejudicial error in the judge's decision prohibiting Defendant from eliciting certain testimony as hearsay on cross-examination; (5) the judge did not err in instructing the jury on inferences; (6) trial counsel provided effective assistance; and (7) there was no reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce Defendant's verdict or order a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Chesko" on Justia Law