Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court treating Petitioner’s paper titled “Respondent’s Petition for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay of Proceedings” as a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and denying relief without a hearing, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing why he could not obtain relief on appeal.After the Commonwealth filed a petition in the superior court seeking civil commitment of Petitioner as a sexually dangerous person pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, Petitioner moved or an order preventing future dissemination of a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, 18(a) report by the district court for the purposes of the Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A proceeding. Petitioner then filed his petition seeking review of that interlocutory order. The single justice denied relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly declined to exercise the court’s extraordinary power of superintendence in light of an adequate alternative remedy. View "Crittenden v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree as a joint venturer and declined to exercise its authority to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant was present at the scene, knowingly participated in the shooting, and had the mental state necessary to the offense.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury’s finding that Defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation as a joint venturer; (2) while the exclusion of certain evidence would have been better practice, the admission of the evidence would not have had any impact on the jury’s verdict; and (3) allowing the presence of a police witness at the prosecutor’s table was not an abuse of the judge’s discretion. View "Commonwealth v. Javier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint seeking relief in the nature of mandamus, holding that there was no error.After Defendant prevailed in a summary process proceeding against Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging error with that proceeding and seeking relief from the judgment. The single justice concluded that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief because she failed to pursue other available remedies. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that relief in the nature of mandamus was not available where the ordinary appellate process would suffice and that Plaintiff failed timely to claim this appeal from the judgment entered in the county court. View "Briscoe v. LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying relief where Appellant did not carry his burden of showing why review of a trial court decision could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by other available means.Appellant was indicted on charges of home invasion and other offenses. Petitioner’s Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition sought relief from a superior court judge’s ruling allowing the Commonwealth’s motion for an order requiring Appellant to submit a buccal swab for purposes of deoxyribonucleic acid testing. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant, if convicted, an had adequate, alternate remedy in the normal appellate process. View "Aldana v. Commonwealth" 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 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