Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of armed assault with intent to murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. Because the firearms offense for which Defendant was convicted had two applicable sentencing enhancement statutes, and the Commonwealth proved convictions of separate prior offenses for each, the judge imposed two sentences pursuant to the sentencing enhancement statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but remanded to the superior court with instructions that the judge vacate the sentence of one of the two sentencing enhancement counts, holding that unless the Legislature has explicitly declared its intent to permit multiple sentencing enhancements, a defendant may be sentenced under only one sentencing enhancement statute. View "Commonwealth v. Richardson" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with firearms violations. Defendants filed motions to suppress, which the municipal court allowed. The Commonwealth appealed, but its notice of appeal was filed late in the trial court. The Commonwealth applied to a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court for leave to appeal, but that application was also filed late. A single justice allowed the application. The Appeals Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal because the Commonwealth’s notice of appeal had not been timely filed. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the Commonwealth’s request for further review and (1) affirmed the order allowing the motion to suppress; and (2) set out a new framework that will apply henceforth to the manner in which the single justices of the Court should apply the procedural rules governing the timeliness of interlocutory appeals of orders on motions to suppress. View "Commonwealth v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers stopped the vehicle Defendant was driving and placed Defendant under arrest on outstanding arrest warrants. The officers proceeded to pat frisk Defendant’s outer clothing and opened a container found on Defendant. Before transporting Defendant to the station for booking, an officer entered Defendant’s vehicle to retrieve its keys and saw an unlabeled container in plain view. The officer seized the pills contained in the container. Thereafter, Defendant was charged with illegal possession of methadone. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of his arrest on the outstanding warrants. The district court denied the motion, and the Appeals Court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress, vacated Defendant’s conviction, and remanded for a new trial, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the police exceeded the lawful scope of a search incident to arrest, an inventory search, and a seizure under the plain view doctrine. View "Commonwealth v. White" on Justia Law

The Sex Offender Registry Board notified Petitioner that it had preliminarily classified him as a level three sex offender. Petitioner requested a hearing. After the hearing had been completed but before the hearing examiner had rendered a decision, a successor examiner was appointed. The successor examiner then issued his decision classifying Petitioner as a level three offender. The superior court affirmed the Board’s decision. Petitioner sought an order directing the Board to produce a transcript of his classification hearing under 803 Code Mass. Regs. 4.22(4), which directs the Board to provide a successor hearing examiner and the parties with a copy of the transcript where the successor examiner is appointed after the presentation of evidence is complete and the record closed. Despite this requirement, no copy of the classification transcript was ever provided to Petitioner. Petitioner’s request was denied. Petitioner then filed a mandamus petition in the county court seeking to compel the Board to provide a copy of the hearing transcript. A single justice denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the single justice and remanded the case to the county court where an order shall enter directing the Board to produce a copy of the transcript. View "Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd." on Justia Law

While conducting a search of the cell of Defendant, an inmate, correctional officers found seven photocopies of photographs that depicted naked children. The photographs were excerpted from a National Geographic magazine, a sociology textbook, and a naturist catalogue. Defendant moved to dismiss his ensuing indictments of child pornography and of being a habitual offender, arguing that the photocopies of the photographs did not constitute child pornography within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 29C. The superior court allowed the motion to dismiss on the basis that none of the photocopies constituted a “lewd exhibition” of the children’s body parts as described in the statute. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the photocopies did not depict a “lewd exhibition,” and therefore, the judge properly dismissed the indictments on the ground that the grand jury were not presented with any evidence to support a finding of probable cause to arrest Defendant for possession of child pornography. View "Commonwealth v. Rex" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the smell of unburnt marijuana suffices to establish probable cause search an automobile. The question arose in the wake of the 2008 ballot initiative decriminalizing possession of one ounce or less of marijuana and the holding in Commonwealth v. Cruz that “the odor of burnt marijuana alone cannot reasonably provide suspicion of criminal activity.” In this case, police perceived a strong odor of unburnt marijuana emanating from Defendant’s vehicle and, after seizing a “fat bag” of marijuana from the glove compartment, searched Defendant’s vehicle. The trial judge denied Defendant’s motion to suppress as to the “fat bag” but ordered suppressed the bags of marijuana found in the ensuing search of the back seat of Defendant’s vehicle. The Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial judge correctly determined that the odor of unburnt marijuana did not justify the search of the back seat of Defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement; but (2) because the judge did not specifically address whether the seizure of the “fat bag” would support probable cause to arrest Defendant, the case must be remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Overmyer" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Defendant for the murder of his wife, who was choked and stabbed to death in the couple’s apartment. The killing was witnessed by the couple’s three and one-half year old son. During trial, Defendant did not dispute that he had killed his wife but asserted only that he had done so in the heat of passion after finding that his wife had remained in contact with other lovers. After a twelve-day trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in allowing Defendant’s son to demonstrate, on a couch in the court room, how the victim had been positioned while Defendant was choking her; and (2) the trial court did not err in prohibiting defense counsel from using a police report to refresh the recollection of a witness regarding a sexual overture made by the victim. View "Commonwealth v. McGee" on Justia Law

This case concerned the effect of the 2008 ballot initiative decriminalizing possession of one ounce or less of marijuana on police authority to conduct warrantless searches of vehicles resulting from the odor of unburnt marijuana. Defendant’s vehicle was searched based solely on the odor of unburnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle. Defendant was subsequently charged with various drug- and firearms-related offenses. A municipal court judge ultimately allowed Defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of the search. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order allowing the motion to suppress, holding (1) the search of Defendant’s vehicle was not justified as a search incident to arrest; (2) the search was not permissible on the basis that it was to “prevent the defendant from smoking marijuana while driving”; and (3) absent articulable facts supporting a belief that defendant possessed a criminal amount of marijuana under state law, the search was not justified by the need to search for contraband under federal law. View "Commonwealth v. Craan" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney, was charged with multiple counts of, inter alia, forgery of a document and uttering a forged instrument. The charges stemmed from allegations that Defendant, through his use of computers, orchestrated a sophisticated scheme to divert to himself funds that were intended to be used to pay off large home mortgage loans. Prior to trial, the Commonwealth filed a motion to compel Defendant to enter his password into encryption software he placed on various digital media storage devices that were in the custody of the Commonwealth. Following a hearing, a judge denied the Commonwealth’s motion to compel decryption but reported a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court. The Court reversed the denial of the Commonwealth’s motion, concluding that Defendant could be compelled to provide his key to seized encrypted digital evidence provided that the compelled decryption would not communicate facts of a testimonial nature to the Commonwealth beyond what Defendant had already admitted to investigators. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation and of unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse her discretion and did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights in questioning members of the jury venire concerning the effect of the absence of eyewitness testimony to the murder in the Commonwealth’s case; (2) the prosecutor’s redirect examination of an immunized witness did not invade the province of the jury to determine the witness’s credibility and did not allow the Commonwealth to vouch for the witness’s credibility; and (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by making certain remarks closing argument. View "Commonwealth v. Andrade" on Justia Law