Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of deliberately premeditated murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm and declined to exercise its extraordinary authority pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant his a new trial or to reduce his first-degree murder conviction to a lesser degree of guilt, holding that there was no error or reason to disturb the verdicts.Together with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. Defendant, who was also convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge erroneously excluded evidence that supported a third-party culprit defense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge's exclusion of certain evidence did not deprive the defense "of the plausible alternative theory that rival drug dealers were responsible for the murder"; (2) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing introduction of testimony that the codefendant possessed a firearm eight months before the shooting; and (3) there was no reason to order a new trial or to reduce the degree of guilt as to the conviction of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Acevedo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and sentence of life without parole, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error and that there was no reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the police officers who arrested him; (2) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant's request for a mental impairment jury instruction; (3) testimony by the Commonwealth's fingerprint analysis expert was not improper; and (4) this Court discerns no reason to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E. View "Commonwealth v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court answered a reported question in the affirmative and held that a "guilty-filed" disposition constitutes a predicate "offense" under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 30A.Defendant was charged with shoplifting, third offense, in violation of section 30A. Defendant moved to dismiss so much of the complaint that alleged a third offense on the grounds that the disposition in one of the predicate offenses on which the Commonwealth relied in support of the third offense portion of the charge was a guilty-filed disposition after Defendant pleaded guilty. The district court judge reported to the appeals court the requisition of whether a guilty-filed disposition constitutes a predicate offense under section 30A, after which Defendant entered a conditional plea to shoplifting. The Supreme Judicial Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that a guilty-filed disposition constitutes an offense under section 30A. View "Commonwealth v. Mcneil" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that the trial justice erred when he failed to instruct the jury on the impact of mental impairment and intoxication on whether Defendant acted in a cruel or atrocious manner, and this error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty for the death of a woman who died from multiple chop wounds from a machete. On appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, Defendant argued that the trial justice erred by failing to provide two jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction, holding that the trial justice did not err by omitting Defendant's requested instructions on sudden combat but did err in failing to give an instruction on mental impairment as it related to extreme atrocity or cruelty, and the error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Miranda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's convictions for five counts of trafficking a person for sexual servitude and a second and subsequent offense of possession of a class A substance with intent to distribute, holding that the conflict of interest inherent in counsel's bigotry against persons of Defendant's faith and race deprived Defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel.Defendant, a Black man of the Muslim faith, was appointed counsel who openly shared his hatred of and bigotry against people of the Muslim faith and his racism against Black persons. Counsel advised Defendant to accept a plea deal, which Defendant did. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and for a new trial, arguing that his counsel had an actual conflict of interest. The motion judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that Defendant met his burden to establish that counsel's representation of him was impaired by an actual conflict of interest. View "Commonwealth v. Dew" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant's conviction of carrying a firearm without a license and his sentence of eighteen months in a house of correction, holding that the Commonwealth did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and Defendant did not waive this issue.In a pretrial motion, Defendant filed a motion to suppress based on the alleged inadequacy of the Miranda warnings provided to him in Spanish. The motion judge denied the motion after finding that Defendant was given "the full complement of Miranda warnings" in English and in Spanish. After he was convicted and the convictions were affirmed on appeal Defendant filed a postconviction motion for a new trial, which the motion judge denied following a hearing. The appeals court affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the conviction, holding (1) Defendant did not waive the issue of whether Miranda warnings were properly given to him in Spanish; and (2) the admission of Defendant's post arrest statements was error. View "Commonwealth v. Delossantos" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of voluntary manslaughter and his sentence of ten to twelve years in prison, holding that the trial errors detected in the underlying proceedings did not, either individually or in combination, create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree and, after a jury trial, convicted of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. On appeal, Defendant argued that rap lyrics he had written were erroneously admitted at trial, that the Commonwealth improperly commented on his rearrest silence, that one of the deliberating jurors was not fair and impartial, and that the jury instructions misstated the law on self-defense. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) there was error in the trial court's decision to admit Defendant's lyrics, but Defendant was not prejudiced; (2) referencing Defendant's pre-arrest silence was error, but there was no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice; but (3) in the context of the entire trial, there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. View "Commonwealth v. Correia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on theories of both deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, holding that there was no error in the underlying proceedings or in the verdict.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence recovered pursuant to a search warrant following a police trooper's examination of Defendant's vehicle, which was visibly parked in the driveway leading up to his house. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant's vehicle was not parked within the curtilage of his home the trooper's observations of the vehicle did not constitute a search for constitutional purposes; and (2) there was no reason for this Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the verdict or order a new trial. View "Commonwealth v. Wittey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation but vacated his conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder, holding that the felony-murder conviction was improper.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, with aggravated kidnapping as the predicate felony. In this appeal, consolidated with the appeal of his motions for a new trial and for reconsideration, Defendant argued, and the Commonwealth conceded, that the conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder was improper because the predicate felony of aggravated kidnapping did not exist at the time of the killing. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's felony-murder conviction and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's conviction of felony-murder lacked sufficient evidence to support it; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Commonwealth v. Samia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying the Commonwealth's petition filed under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 seeking relief from a superior court judge's denial of the Commonwealth's motion to disqualify Rosemary Scapicchio, Defendant's appellate counsel, on the ground that she had a conflict of interest, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying the motion.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. Later, represented by Scapicchio, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging ineffective of counsel. Thereafter, Scapicchio represented Michael Barros at a hearing in an unrelated criminal case. The Commonwealth moved to disqualify Scapicchio on the grounds that her representation of both Defendant and Barros gave rise to a conflict of interest. The superior court denied the motion. The Commonwealth then filed the petition at issue. The single justice denied relief without reaching its merits. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion by denying the petition. View "Commonwealth v. Monteiro" on Justia Law