Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of employees’ (Employees) putative class action lawsuit brought against the corporate officers (Officers) of a ISIS Parenting, Inc. (Company), holding that the superior court judge properly granted the Officers’ motion to dismiss.After the Company abruptly ceased operations and terminated its entire workforce, the Employees brought a class action lawsuit against the Company in federal court alleging a violation of the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. 2101-2109 (WARN Act). After receiving a nearly $2 million default judgment, the Employees brought a putative class action lawsuit against the Officers in state court under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 148 (Wage Act), alleging (1) the WARN Act damages constituted wrongfully withheld “earned wages” for which the Officers were liable; and (2) the Officers committed a breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Company by allowing the Company to violate the WARN Act. The superior court granted the Officers’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the Employees’ complaint was properly dismissed because (1) WARN Act damages are not “earned wages” under the Wage Act; and (2) the Employees did not assert a viable claim for breach of fiduciary duties. View "Calixto v. Coughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that where Petitioner had the opportunity to obtain review of an adverse judgment in an appeal, the single justice did not commit a clear error of law or abuse her discretion in denying relief.Petitioner was divorced from Respondent pursuant to a judgment of divorce nisi. Thereafter, Respondent filed a complaint for modification of child support followed by a motion to set aside the property settlement in the divorce judgment. A judge allowed both requests for relief. Petitioner later sought extraordinary relief, which the single justice denied. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate the absence or inadequacy of alternative means of redress. View "Aktas v. Aktas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition for equitable relief, holding that the relief sought by Petitioner was not available.Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and escape. His consecutive committed sentences were to be served “from and after” sentences he was serving in federal prison in connection with offenses committed in the District of Columbia. After Petitioner was granted parole from federal prison he refused to be released because he did not want to return to Massachusetts to serve his “from and after” sentences. Although Petitioner had not yet begun serving his Massachusetts sentences, his petition sought an order requiring that he be considered for parole. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the relief Petitioner sought was not available because, among other things, he was not currently serving his Massachusetts sentences. View "Murray v. Massachusetts Parole Board" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court allowing the Commonwealth’s petition for relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 in this discovery dispute, holding that relief was properly granted.Defendant was charged with several offenses, and a judge in that court granted in part his motion for discovery from the Commonwealth. In its petition, the Commonwealth disputed a portion of that order that required the prosecutor to produce certain exculpatory information from the personnel files of the Boston Police Department and its internal affairs division. The single justice allowed the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly vacated the portion of the discovery order to the extent that it required the prosecutor to look through the internal affairs division file and/or other personnel files of the police department where the materials were not in the possession, custody, or control of the Commonwealth. View "Commonwealth v. Cruz" 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 under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing argument and that the supplemental instructions provided to the jury in response to a question the jury submitted during deliberations were not in error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor’s method of presenting grant jury testimony was flawed and that erroneous jury instructions entitled him to a reversal of his convictions. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the prosecutor’s method of presenting the grand jury testimony was not in error and that the instruction the judge gave in response to the jury’s question was a correct statement of the law. View "Commonwealth v. Andrade" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the district court’s order dismissing a complaint issued against Defendant charging him with two counts of criminal harassment, holding that the series of acts outlined in the complaint that were attributed to Defendant satisfied the elements of criminal harassment.In allowing Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the district court judge concluded that the complaint did not allege three qualifying acts to support a charge of criminal harassment as to either named victim. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that the complaint supplied probable cause to charge Defendant with two counts of criminal harassment. View "Commonwealth v. Brennan" on Justia Law