Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the superior court affirming the decision of the Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (CRAB) that Appellant was not entitled to retirement benefits calculated based on her salary for the years that she worked as a contract employee, holding that the superior court did not abuse its discretion.After Appellant retired she requested that her benefit amount be based on her compensation during the purchased years of creditable contract employment with the State rather than her lower-paid years as a regular State employee. CRAB ruled against Appellant's request, and the superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not meet the statutory definition of "employee" for purposes of the retirement system in the years that she worked as a contract employee; and (2) therefore, CRAB properly determined that compensation received during years for which credit in the State retirement system is purchased is not regular compensation and may not be used to calculate a member's pension benefit. View "Young v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial and declined to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the verdict or order a new trial, holding that none of the errors during trial created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.A jury found Defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) trial counsel erred by failing to engage a medical expert to opine on the voluntariness of Defendant's statements after surgery and on whether his waiver of Miranda rights was knowing and voluntary, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for conceding certain points during closing argument; and (3) the trial judge erred in instructing the jury as to some issues, but the error did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of prejudice. View "Commonwealth v. Richards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that there was a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice arising from the application of the model jury instructions regarding criminal responsibility to the particular facts of this case.On issue at trial was whether the Commonwealth had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was criminally responsible for the killing of a patient at the psychiatric ward of the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, where Defendant was also a patient. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions, holding that, in view of the substantial evidence that Defendant had a mental disease or defect and that he lacked substantial capacity at the time of the killing, there was a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice arising from the risk of the jury's having misunderstood the model jury instructions. The Court also provisionally revised its model jury instructions regarding criminal responsibility to address what it concluded as a problematic risk of confusion. View "Commonwealth v. Dunphe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the verdict of murder in the first degree and the sentence imposed in this case and remanded the matter to the superior court with directions to enter a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree and to sentence Defendant accordingly, holding that a verdict of murder in the second degree was the most just verdict in this case.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the conviction, holding (1) this Court's jury instructions regarding all of the extreme atrocity or cruelty factors set forth in Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216, 227 (1983) prospectively to more closely comport with the meaning given to the term "extreme atrocity or cruelty" are hereby revised and included in this opinion; and (2) based on the evidence of extreme atrocity or cruelty in this case, this Court exercises its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the degree of guilt to murder in the second degree, which, in light of the facts of this case, is a verdict more consonant with justice. View "Commonwealth v. Castillo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding that Defendant violated a special condition of probation and vacating the findings that Defendant violated his conditions of probation, holding that Defendant's actions were not prohibited by his probation condition.A district court judge found that Defendant, a self-employed home improvement contractor, violated a special condition of probation because he did not report as a work address on a sex offender registration form the home in Lynn where he was doing repair work. The judge also found that Defendant violated the special condition of probation that he not "work...with children" because there was an infant in the home where he worked. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's "work address" was his home address for sex offender registration purposes; and (2) Defendant did not "work with children" in replacing a gutter or restoring exterior woodwork. View "Commonwealth v. Harding" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that due process does not permit a juvenile court judge to conduct a transfer hearing pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 119, 72A where the defendant, now an adult, is incompetent to stand trial for a crime allegedly committed as a juvenile.Defendant was arraigned in the juvenile court on charges of indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen and indecent assault and battery on a mentally disabled person. Defendant was a twenty-year-old adult when the delinquency complaint was brought. The juvenile court declared Defendant legally incompetent to stand trial. Thereafter, the Commonwealth requested a section 72A transfer hearing. Defendant moved to stay the hearing, which the juvenile court denied. Defendant petitioned for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the juvenile court's order denying Defendant's motion to stay the section 72A hearing until Defendant is competent to stand trial, holding that due process does not permit a section 72A transfer hearing to proceed while the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. View "In re Juvenile" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that trust funds on deposit in an Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account (IOLTA) do not fall within the statutory definition of "abandoned property," and therefore, the disposition of these funds is not governed by the abandoned property statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 200A.Attorney was temporarily suspended from the practice of law. Attorney's attorney later notified the Office of Bar Counsel that there were unidentified funds in Attorney's two IOLTA accounts and moved to order the transfer of the unidentified funds to the IOLTA committee. The Treasurer and Receiver General moved to intervene, requesting that the funds be remitted to the treasury as "abandoned property" under chapter 200A. The IOLA committee subsequently moved to intervene, requesting that the funds be remitted to it. The Supreme Judicial Court held that unidentified client funds on deposit in an IOTLA account do not fall within the statutory definition of "abandoned property" under chapter 200A and that such funds be transferred to the IOLTA committee for disposition under the conditions set forth in this opinion. View "In re Olchowski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's guilty plea to a sentencing enhancement and his conviction of unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, holding that where a defendant makes a good faith claim that a deliberating juror reported that racial bias infected the jury's deliberations, a judge may not condition acceptance of a guilty plea to a sentencing enhancement upon a waiver of that claim.Immediately after entry of the guilty verdict in this case, a deliberating juror reported that racial bias influenced the jury's deliberations. Defendant filed a motion to investigate the juror's claims prior to the jury-waived trial on two sentencing enhancements. The prosecutor agreed to nol pros one sentencing enhancement in return for Defendant's guilty plea to the other sentencing enhancement if Defendant withdrew the motion. Defendant withdrew the motion and pleaded guilty to one of the sentencing enhancements. Defendant later moved, unsuccessfully, for a new trial, seeking to vacate his guilty plea to the sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court ordered a new trial as to the sentencing enhancements, holding that once a defendant's right to a jury trial is invoked a defendant may not waive his right to a verdict that is untainted by racial or ethnic bias. View "Commonwealth v. McCalop" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the land court judge dismissing the Town of Sudbury's complaint seeking to prevent the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) from entering into an option agreement with Eversource Energy for an easement to install an electric transmission line underneath nine miles of a disused right of way (ROW), approximately 4.3 miles of which extend through the town, holding that the Town could not prevail on either of its claims.Here, the Town asked the Supreme Court to extend the common-law doctrine of prior public use and to determine that the doctrine barred the diversion of public land devoted to one public use to an inconsistent private use. The Supreme Judicial Court declined to adopt the Town's proposed reworking of the doctrine, holding that the Land Court judge did not err in dismissing the Town's complaint because (1) Eversource's proposed use of the MBTA ROW to construct and operate underground transmission lines is not a public use; and (2) the Town has not demonstrated that the benefits of expanding the prior public use doctrine to encompass subsequent inconsistent private uses outweigh the value of adhering to this Court's longstanding common-law formulation. View "Town of Sudbury v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment on several claims against police officers personally, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact whether the police officers used excessive force against Appellant after he was removed from his vehicle.Plaintiff, a black man, was stopped by two police officers. The stop escalated into a physical altercation during which five police officers forcibly removed Plaintiff from the vehicle and wrestled him to the ground. Plaintiff was convicted of several offenses stemming from the incident. While the criminal case was pending, Plaintiff filed a civil action alleging that the officers committed several torts and violated his civil rights. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the civil action. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment in part, holding (1) Plaintiff's civil action may only proceed where it is based on facts beyond those that were necessary to sustain Plaintiff's prior criminal conviction and where Plaintiff demonstrates that his claims would not necessarily challenge the validity of his prior criminal conviction; and (2) this conclusion does not bar the claims that Plaintiff based on events that occurred after the police officers forcibly removed him from his vehicle. View "Tinsley v. Town of Framingham" on Justia Law