Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order of a judge of the superior court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm discovered during what Defendant alleged was an unlawful patfrisk, holding that the motion to suppress was properly granted.The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the grant of Defendant's motion to suppress, arguing that the officers' suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous was reasonable. The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, holding (1) the motion judge properly found that Defendant's behavior did not create reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous; and (2) Defendant's reactions to the traffic stop did not justify the subsequent patfrisk. View "Commonwealth v. Garner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court granting in part Defendant's gatekeeper petition to appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial and reversed the motion judge's denial of Defendant's motion, holding that the Commonwealth violated its obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and prejudiced Defendant.In 1986, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. At issue before the Supreme Judicial Court was Defendant's second motion for a new trial, in which Defendant alleged that several pieces of evidence were not disclosed at his criminal trial. The motion judge denied the motion. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that Defendant established that the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence and that such nondisclosure was prejudicial. View "Commonwealth v. Pope" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a jury-waived trial on the ground that it gave the appearance of "judge shopping" and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.Defendant was charged with two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (a chair and a blunt object) on a person aged sixty or older. Defendant filed a request for a jury-waived trial, which the trial judge denied. After a trial, Defendant was found guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's request for a jury waiver; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the chair was a "dangerous weapon" within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 15A. View "Commonwealth v. Gebo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for four counts of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder and the order denying his motion for a new trial and declined to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial; (2) Defendant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) Defendant's argument that exculpatory evidence pointed to another suspect was unavailing; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; and (5) the judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to strike a juror. View "Commonwealth v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of felony-murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial, holding that there was no error that would necessitate a new trial, 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 to reduce the conviction to a lesser degree of guilt.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his felony-murder conviction must be reversed because his accomplice was killed during a struggle with the intended robbery victim, and therefore, the theory of felony-murder was inapplicable. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the felony-murder rule was applicable; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions; and (3) Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "Commonwealth v. Duke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, 178H(a)(2) does not permit an individual convicted of failure to register as a sex offender, subsequent offense, to be sentenced to a term of incarceration in prison of less than five years.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to register as a sex offender, subsequent offense, under section 178H(a)(2). As to count two, the judge announced that he intended to sentence Defendant to one or two years in the state prison but stayed the sentence pending his report of questions now before the Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Judicial Court answered (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 6, 178H(a)(2). does not permit a state prison sentence for a period of less than five years; and (2) the court's proposed sentence in this case was unlawful under section 178H(a)(2). View "Commonwealth v. Rossetti" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for review pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 248, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Petitioner was charged with three offenses related to a domestic incident. Petitioner pled not guilty and then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was not probable cause to charge him with a crime. A single justice denied the petition. Petitioner then filed his petition in the county court unsuccessfully challenging that order. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the single justice erred in denying relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. View "Del Gallo v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court vacating the order of the superior court judge granting pretrial release to Defendant, holding that the single justice acted pursuant to his broad powers and within his considerable discretion.In 2017, Defendant was arraigned on various charges and held without bail. Defendant later filed multiple motions for release based on the health risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and exacerbated by his heart condition. The fourth motion resulted in Defendant's being released temporarily from pretrial custody subject to certain conditions. The single justice vacated the order and directed that Defendant continue to be held without bail. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the single justice's determination was not an abuse of discretion. View "Commonwealth v. Herring" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the superior court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss insofar as it concerned the charge of murder in the first degree on a joint venture theory, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support this conviction.Defendant charged with murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, accessory after the fact to murder, carrying a firearm without a license, and carrying a loaded firearm without a license. After four days of deliberations the jury deadlocked, and the trial judge declared a mistrial. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a retrial would violate his right against double jeopardy. After the motion judge denied the motion Defendant filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the cause, holding that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant shared the lethal intent of the shooter required to support a conviction of murder in the first degree on a joint venture theory. View "Baxter v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the order of the motion judge granting a continuance sought by the Commonwealth for the express purpose of delaying resolution of the case past the juvenile's eighteenth birthday, holding that, absent certain findings, it was an abuse discretion to allow the continuance.Where the motion judge granted the continuance in this case, it meant the difference between twenty days and twelve months the juvenile spent in the custody of the Department of Youth Services. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) continuances for the sole purpose of extending the time of commitment are authorized only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the continued commitment is necessary for the rehabilitation of the juvenile and express findings are made to that effect after an evidentiary hearing; and (2) because no such findings were made in the instant case and the juvenile had already turned eighteen, it was an abuse of discretion to allow the continuance. View "Noah v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law