Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for murder in the first degree, armed assault with intent to murder, and animal cruelty, and declined to grant extraordinary relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that no prejudicial error occurred.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) no error occurred during jury selection with respect to the voir dire of prospective jurors; (2) the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the neutral reason provided by the prosecutor for exercising a peremptory challenge was genuine and adequate; (3) the judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting prior bad act evidence, testimony that Defendant had access to firearms, and testimony regarding the results of a criminalist's Internet search; (4) evidence of charred paper fragments found in the basement of the dwelling where Defendant lived was not relevant, but the error was not prejudicial; and (5) there was no error in the prosecutor's statements during closing argument. View "Commonwealth v. Mason" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that there was no error that resulted in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's statements that he made to police were properly admitted into evidence; (2) the trial judge did not err in finding that text messages sent after the murder were admissible; (3) the trial judge did not err in admitting a redacted version of the videotaped custodial interrogation of Defendant; (4) the trial judge did not err in declining to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter; (5) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's postconviction motion for a new trial; and (6) there was no reason to order a new trial or reduce the degree of guilt under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the Land Court judge ruling that the statutory scheme set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 60, 52 did not permit assignees of tax title accounts to include their own subsequent tax payments in the amount required for redemption, holding that the judge did not err.In 2011, City took tax title to Owners' property. Owners did not pay their real estate taxes in 2012 through 2015. In 2016, City assigned Appellant its tax title to the property. Appellant initiated proceedings to foreclose Owners' right to redeem the property. Owners exercised their right of redemption. In 2018, Appellant asked the Land Court to find that the redemption amount include the taxes owed to City at the time Appellant was assigned the tax title account, the taxes that Appellant had paid on the property from 2016 through 2018, and statutory interest on the unpaid real estate taxes and the taxes paid by Appellant. The judge concluded that tax payments made by section 52 assignees subsequent to the assignment of the tax title account could not be included in the redemption amount. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that section 52 assignees of tax title accounts may not include their own subsequent tax payments, and interest thereon, in their redemption demands. View "Tallage Lincoln, LLC v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree, holding that any claimed instructional errors did not give rise to a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice and that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury concerning a lack of criminal responsibility and mental impairment and erred by failing properly to instruct the jury that they could consider evidence of intoxication when determining whether a murder was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Defendant further argued that trial court's failure to remedy the instructional errors deprived him of the effective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the jury instructions and, accordingly no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice in counsel's handling of the instructions; and (2) there was no reason to reduce the verdict to one of murder in the second degree. View "Commonwealth v. Santiago" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the superior court granting summary judgment in favor of Dorchester Mutual with respect to its duty to indemnify the parents of Timothy Krusell, holding that the allowance of summary judgment in favor of Dorchester Mutual was error.Timothy pushed Robert Haufler on a sidewalk, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Haufler brought a personal injury action against the Krusells. Dorchester Mutual sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify the Krusells under a homeowners' insurance policy for Haufler's personal injury claims because Timothy's conduct was a form of "physical abuse" for which coverage was unavailable. A superior court judge concluded that coverage was precluded. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding (1) the term "physical abuse," as used in the policy, was ambiguous, but a reasonable insured would interpret the term as not precluding coverage for Haufler's claim; and (2) there was no error in the allowance of summary judgment on so much of the Krusell's cross claim as asserted violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 176D. View "Dorchester Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krusell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court denied Defendant's motion for attorney's fees and costs made by an attorney who claimed to have been privately retained by Defendant for the purpose of opposing the Commonwealth's application for leave to appeal, holding that no attorney's fees are required under Mass. R. Crim. P. 15(d) in this situation.Defendant, who was indigent, was convicted of murder in the second degree and two firearm offenses. Before trial, Defendant filed motions to suppress a variety of evidence. After the trial judge ruled on the motions, both sides sought leave to appeal from the rulings that were adverse to them. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. At issue was the attorney's fees request by the attorney claiming to be privately retained by Defendant. The Supreme Judicial Court denied the request, holding that Rule 15(d) was not meant for attorneys who represent defendants whom they know to be indigent and from whom they never expect to receive payment. View "Commonwealth v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that the errors that occurred during the trial did not require a new trial.On appeal, Defendant argued that she was prejudiced from the Commonwealth's use of prior bad act evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) some of the challenged evidence should not have been admitted, but there was no abuse of discretion int he judge's conclusion that the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect; (2) the prosecutor's reliance on the prior bad act evidence in closing arguments was improper, but the improprieties did not so infuse the trial with unfairness as to deny due process of law; and (3) a reduction in the verdict pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E would not serve the interests of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Peno" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the denial of the motions to suppress filed by Nelson Mora and Ricky Suarez, holding that the continuous, long-term pole camera surveillance targeted at the residences of Mora and Suarez was a search under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.Using video footage collected by hidden video cameras on public telephone and electrical poles (pole cameras) the Commonwealth secured indictments against twelve defendants, including Mora and Suarez. Eight defendants moved to suppress the pole camera footage and evidence derived from that footage as the fruits of an unreasonable search. The superior court denied the motions, concluding that the pole camera surveillance did not constitute a search. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed as to Mora and Suarez and remanded the matter to the superior court for further proceedings, holding that the warrantless surveillance of Mora's and Suarez's residences for more than two months was a "search" under article 14. View "Commonwealth v. Mora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the decision of the State Ballot Law Commission (SBLC) preventing Helen Brady from appearing on the September 1, 2020 State primary election ballot and ordered the Secretary to place Brady's name on the ballot, holding that the electronic filing process utilized by Brady complied with the substance of the material requirements of the decision in Goldstein v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 484 Mass. 516, 531-532 (2020).The SBLC struck all of the certified signatures that Brady, who sought to appear on the ballot for the Republican nomination for the office of United States representative for the Ninth Congressional District in Massachusetts, had secured from voters. Brady had gathered all of her voter signatures electronically and collected the required minimum number of signatures. The SBLC struck all of Brady's signatures on the ground that Brady failed to comply with the Goldstein process. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the SBLC decision, holding that the electronic signature gathering process Brady utilized complied in substance with the material requirements of Goldstein. View "Brady v. State Ballot Law Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the single justice denying Plaintiff's motion asking the single justice to find Defendants and the superior court in contempt of a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 4A transfer order, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in denying the motion for contempt.Plaintiff filed a complaint in the county court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) based on a claim of housing discrimination. The single justice transferred the complaint to the superior court pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 4A. From there, the case was removed to the federal court. The federal court dismissed the claims against HUD and remanded the claims against the BHA to the superior court. Plaintiff then filed a motion in the county court asking the single justice to find Defendants and the superior court in contempt of the transfer order. The single justice denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice correctly denied the motion for contempt. View "Linardon v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development" on Justia Law