Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that Petitioner did not show that review of the trial court could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by other available means.In his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition, Petitioner sought relief from various interlocutory rulings of the probate judge in his divorce proceedings and also sought to have the probate judge recused. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief. View "Jiang v. Liu" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to review pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3.In his petition, Petitioner sought to have his convictions vacated and the indictments dismissed, to have certain evidence destroyed, and to have the Court commence investigations into various individuals associated with his case. The justice justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief. View "Kyricopoulos v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of felony-murder in the first degree and armed robbery, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below, and there was no reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to order a new trial or reduce the verdict to voluntary manslaughter.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of felony-murder because there was sufficient evidence of armed robbery, the predicate felony; (2) the judge did not err in declining to instruct the jury on felony-murder in the second degree; (3) any errors in the Commonwealth’s closing argument did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (4) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Commonwealth v. Copeland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decisions of the superior court judges allowing two police officers’ motions for judgment on the pleadings and vacating the decisions of the Essex Regional Retirement Board and the State Board of Retirement denying the officers a retirement allowance under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 32, 15(4) due to the officers’ respective criminal convictions, holding that requiring the forfeiture of the officers’ pension allowances was in error.John Swallow, a police sergeant for the town of Manchester-by-the-Sea, was on administrative leave when he was charged with crimes related to the discharge of his personal firearm. Brian O’Hare, a police sergeant of the State police, was charged with the federal crime of using the Internet to entice a person under the age of eighteen to engage in unlawful sexual activity. The two boards in these cases each concluded that the officers’ convictions violated the fundamental tenets of their positions as law enforcement officials and denied them a retirement allowance. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that section 15(4) did not require the forfeiture of the officers' pension allowances. View "Essex Regional Retirement Board v. Swallow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court judge’s order vacating the district court judge’s Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 58A (58A) pretrial detention order of David Barnes and affirmed the denial of William Scione’s petition for extraordinary relief, holding that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 275, 23A (23A) does not qualify as a predicate offense under section 58A in its current form and that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 102A (102A) qualified in this case.Barnes was charged with violating section 23A, and Scione was charged with violating section 102A. In both cases, the Commonwealth moved to detain the defendants pursuant to section 58A, the pretrial detention statute. The Commonwealth’s motions were allowed and the defendants were ordered held. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court judge’s order vacating the pretrial detention order of Barnes and affirmed the denial of Scione’s petition for extraordinary relief, holding (1) rape aggravated by age difference, section 23A, does not qualify as a predicate offense under section 58A; and (2) use of an incendiary device in violation of section 102A qualifies as a predicate offense under section 58A. View "Scione v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for unlawful possession of drugs found within a locked glove compartment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and that Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.In denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the motion judge found that the police had probable cause to arrest Defendant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana and that the search of the vehicle was justified as an inventory search. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge was warranted in finding that police had probable cause to believe that Defendant had operated a motor vehicle while impaired; and (2) while the motion judge’s decision to deny the motion to suppress was improper on the grounds that the police conducted a lawful inventory search, the officers had authority to search the vehicle, pursuant to the automobile exception, for evidence pertaining to the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. View "Commonwealth v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion for release from unlawful confinement and for a new sentencing hearing, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration following Defendant’s repeated addiction-related violations of probation over a period of several years.Defendant requested the sentence in order to participate in a secure residential drug treatment program. Several months after serving her sentence, however, Defendant sought release from what she termed as an unlawful restraint, as well as a new sentencing hearing. The motion was denied. On appeal, Defendant argued that, in setting the length of Defendant's sentence, the judge abused his discretion when he took into account the time requirements of the rehabilitative program Defendant wished to enter. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse his discretion in these limited circumstances. View "Commonwealth v. Plasse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that none of Defendant’s arguments on appeal warranted reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) the judge did not improperly curtail Defendant’s cross-examination of two witnesses; (3) the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (4) there was no basis to set aside or reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that, to the extent a surviving spouse’s shares of a deceased spouse’s estate exceeds $25,000, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 191, 15, the Commonwealth’s elective share statute, reduces his or her interest in the real property from outright ownership to a life estate.The dispute here centered on the nature of a surviving spouse’s interest in a deceased spouse’s real property where the surviving spouse’s shares of the decedent’s personal and real property together exceeded $25,000 in value. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) where a surviving spouse elects to waive the provisions of a deceased spouse’s will in accordance with section 15 and the decedent left issue, the surviving spouse is entitled to one-third of the decedent’s personal property and one-third of the decedent’s real property; (2) the above is subject to the limitation that if the surviving spouse’s shares of the real and property property, taken together, exceed $25,000 in value, then the surviving spouse takes $25,000 absolutely and a life estate in any remaining real property; and (3) further, any remaining personal property must be held in trust for the duration of the surviving spouse’s life with the surviving spouse entitled to the income therefrom. View "Ciani v. MacGrath" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the trial judge allowing Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding (1) Massachusetts courts have personal jurisdiction over nonresident individuals who are served with process while intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily in Massachusetts; and (2) Defendants in this case were served under these circumstances.Plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, sued Defendants, New Hampshire residents, in superior court. Plaintiff alleged negligence arising out of an incident that occurred in Florida. Defendants with served with in-hand process in Worcester. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The superior court allowed the motion, concluding that personal service in Massachusetts does not confer jurisdiction on the court. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that personal jurisdiction over Defendants comported with both State law and due process because Defendants were served while intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily in Massachusetts. View "Roch v. Mollica" on Justia Law