Justia Massachusetts Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioners’ petition or relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 249, 5, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Petitioners sought relief after their property was foreclosed on a tax lien. After Petitioners’ efforts in the federal courts were unsuccessful, they filed their petition in the county court asking the court to vacate the lower court judgments and to order the town of Rehoboth to return their house and all of the personal property kept therein. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where Petitioners already obtained appellate review of the tax lien foreclosure judgment and to the extent that there were other trial court judgments with which they were dissatisfied, they had a remedy in the normal appellate process. View "Cichocki v. Town of Rehoboth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed as moot Petitioner’s appeal from a judgment of a single justice of the court denying his petition for relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the appeal was moot in the sense that the relief Petitioner sought could no longer be granted.Petitioner, an inmate, filed a complaint seeking review of an inmate disciplinary report against him. At issue was the denial of Petitioner’s motion to amend the complaint. A single justice of the Appeals Court denied Petitioner’s petition seeking interlocutory review of the superior court judge’s denial of the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition in the county court seeking relief from the superior court’s order. After the single justice denied relief, the underlying disciplinary report was dismissed and the guilty finding was expunged from Petitioner’s administrative record. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed as moot Petitioner’s appeal from the judgment of the single justice because the relief Petitioner sought - leave to amend his complaint - could no longer be granted. View "Hudson v. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Concord" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice denying Petitioners’ petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 asking the court to address the issue whether a trustee can appear “pro se” to represent a trust, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief.Specifically, Petitioners asked the court to address the issue whether a “non-lawyer trustee” is “entitled” to “self-representation.” The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that this case did not present the type of exceptional circumstance that requires the exercise of this court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Eresian v. Scheffer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of the motion judge allowing Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered when police officers “froze” a house while they obtained a warrant, holding that the suppression order was proper because there was an insufficient basis to believe that evidence would be lost or destroyed.The court of appeals reversed the suppression order, concluding that the police officers’ actions were justified to prevent the removal or destruction of evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding that that police officers were not justified in conducting a warrantless search to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence. View "Commonwealth v. Owens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the Court denying, without a hearing, Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of mandamus, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying the petition.In this case, one of several cases relating to Bahig Bishay’s eviction from his home, Bishay appealed from a final judgment. While that appeal was pending, Bishay and National Investigations, Inc. filed a joint petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking, inter alia, an order requiring the superior court judge to incorporate an agreement into the final judgment. The single justice denied the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioners failed to meet their burden of establishing that the normal appellate process was inadequate to provide a remedy. View "Bishay v. Superior Court Department" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of first degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder with armed home invasion and armed robbery as the predicate felonies and discerned no basis to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant claimed four instances of error in the admission of evidence and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgments and declined to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that the evidence of Defendant’s guilt in this case was overwhelming and there was no error requiring reversal. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the Court denying, without a hearing, Appellant’s petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking review of the superior court judge’s orders on his motions filed in connection with his motion for a new trial, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying the petition.Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking of a person for sexual servitude and other charges. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial, seeking to withdraw his pleas, and filed several additional motions in connection with that motion. A single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that where Petitioner had an adequate alternative avenue to seek review, his petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 was properly denied. View "Dew v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed an order of a single justice of this Court dismissing without prejudice Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 for failure to pay the filing fee or to file a proper affidavit of indigency, holding that the petition was now moot and that the single justice did not err in dismissing the petition.Petitioner filed her petition seeking review of an interlocutory ruling of the trial court denying her late request for a jury trial on a summary process action brought against her. The single justice denied the petition. Thereafter, Petitioner petitioned for review pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The single justice dismissed the petition. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the petition has become moot because the underlying case proceeded to a final judgment, and the eviction has occurred; (2) the single justice did not err in dismissing the petition for failure to execute a proper affidavit of indigency or infringe on Petitioner’s right of access to the courts in doing so; and (3) Petitioner was unable to demonstrate the unavailability of adequate alternative means of obtaining appellate review. View "Anderson v. Panagiotopoulos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reformulated ten reported questions regarding the scope and application of the due process obligations established in Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249, 1252 (2017), providing guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding the repayment of probation fees, restitution victim-witness assessments, forfeitures, fines, and court costs after a conviction has been invalidated.In Nelson, the United States Supreme Court held that when a criminal conviction is invalidated and no retrial will occur, the state is required under the Due Process Clause to refund fees, court costs, and restitution exacted from the defendant as a consequence of the conviction. In these cases, after Defendants’ convictions were dismissed with prejudice, Defendants moved for refunds of the money paid in forfeitures, probation fees, and other costs. The judges reported the matters and questions of law to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court answered the reported questions and remanded the cases to the reporting courts for proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Commonwealth v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree and the superior court’s denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below and that there was no reason to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial.Specifically, the Court held (1) defense counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance; (2) Defendant’s due process rights were not violated by the Commonwealth’s failure to disclose purported cooperation agreements it had with witnesses; (3) there was no prejudicial error in the admission of evidence of injuries the child sustained; and (4) the prosecutor did not improperly vouch for the credibility of the victim’s mother in her closing argument. View "Commonwealth v. Goitia" on Justia Law