Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the motion judge's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and Defendant's convictions of breaking and entering and larceny, holding that the Commonwealth's act of accessing and reviewing historical GPS location data recorded from a GPS monitoring device that was attached to Defendant as a condition of his probation was not a search in the constitutional sense.Specifically, the Court held (1) although the original imposition of GPS monitoring as a condition of Defendant's probation was a search, it was reasonable in light of Defendant's criminal history and apparent willingness to recidivate while on probation; (2) once the GPS device was attached to Defendant, he did not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in data targeted by police to determine his whereabouts; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions of breaking and entering in the nighttime and larceny over $250. View "Commonwealth v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Judicial Court held that, as applied to Defendant, GPS monitoring as a condition of Defendant's probation was an unconstitutional search under article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.Defendant was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography. The terms of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 47 requires judges to impose GPS monitoring as a condition of probation for individuals convicted of most sex offenses. In accordance with the statute, the sentencing judge imposed GPS monitoring as a condition of Defendant's probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that, as applied to him, the condition of mandatory GPS monitoring constituted an unconstitutional unreasonable search. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, 47 is over inclusive in that GPS monitoring will not necessarily constitute a reasonable search for all individuals convicted of a qualifying sex offense; (2) to comport with article 14, prior to imposing GPS monitoring on a defendant, a judge is required to conduct a balancing test weighing the Commonwealth's need to impose GPS monitoring against the defendant's privacy invasion arising by the monitoring; and (3) in the instant case, the Commonwealth's particularized reasons for imposing GPS monitoring on Defendant did not outweigh the privacy invasion that GPS monitoring entails. View "Commonwealth v. Feliz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendants’ convictions of murder in the first degree by reason of extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony-murder and declined to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to grant a new trial or to reduce the verdicts, holding that no prejudicial error occurred.The defendants in this case were Alexander Gallett and Michel St. Jean. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed their convictions, holding (1) the motion judge did err in failing to suppress statements that Gallett made to police during his interrogation; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support St. Jean’s murder conviction; (3) St. Jean was not prejudiced by the admission of statements from Gallett’s redacted police interrogation; (4) the judge did not err in denying St. Jean’s requests for various jury instructions; (5) the trial judge did not improperly invoke juror sympathy; (6) there was no prejudicial error in limiting the cross-examination of certain witnesses; and (7) it was not reversible error for the judge to decline to give a humane practice jury instruction. View "Commonwealth v. Gallett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree and declined to order a new trial or reduct the verdict under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that a new trial was not required in this case.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground of undisclosed exculpatory evidence; (2) the superior court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (4) certain evidence should not have been admitted, but there was no prejudice to Defendant; and (5) certain grand jury testimony should not have been admitted, but a new trial was not required on that basis. View "Commonwealth v. Ferreira" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial court affirmed the district court judge’s order allowing Defendant’s motion to suppress narcotics seized from Defendant’s crotch area as a result of a strip search that took place in a cell at a police station, holding that police did not have probable cause to believe that Defendant had concealed narcotics somewhere on his person so as to justify conducting a strip search.Specifically, the Court held that, based on the facts of this case, the officers had, at best, a reasonable suspicion that Defendant could be concealing contraband in his crotch, but because there was no affirmative indication that Defendant was secreting contraband in his groin area, the police lacked probable cause to conduct a strip search of Defendant. View "Commonwealth v. Agogo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress in this case concerning the scope of the emergency aid exception and the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant on the ground that the warrant was predicated on observations made during an unconstitutional warrantless search. The superior court allowed the motion. The appeals court reversed, concluding that the warrantless search was permissible under the emergency aid doctrine. The Supreme Court granted further appellate review and affirmed the order allowing the motion to suppress, holding (1) the warrantless search was not justified under the emergency aid exception; and (2) the search was not justified under the probable cause and exigent circumstances exception. View "Commonwealth v. Arias" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the common-law doctrine of abatement ab initio, where a criminal conviction is vacated and the indictment is dismissed after the defendant dies while his direct appeal as of right challenging that conviction is in process, is outdated and that a new approach that is more consonant with the circumstances of contemporary life applies in the present case.In this case, the defendant may have committed suicide to prevent the application of the doctrine of abatement ab initio to benefit surviving family members, heirs, and other beneficiaries. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the trial court’s order allowing Defendant’s motion to abate prosecution, dismissing Defendant’s notice of appeal, vacating his conviction, and dismissing the indictment and dismissing Defendant’s notice of appeal as moot. The Court held (1) when a defendant dies irrespective of cause while a direct appeal of right challenging his conviction is pending, the proper course is to dismiss the appeal as moot and note in the record that the conviction removed the defendant’s presumption of innocence but that the conviction was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because the defendant died; and (2) this approach, which otherwise applies only prospectively, should apply in the instant case. View "Commonwealth v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the trial judge’s denial of the Commonwealth’s renewed motion filed pursuant to Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt, 468 Mass. 512 (2014), and remanded for entry of an order compelling Defendant to enter a password into a cell phone seized from Defendant at the time of his arrest, holding that the motion judge abused his discretion in denying the Commonwealth’s motion.Defendant was charged with, among other things, trafficking a person for sexual servitude. The Commonwealth was granted a search warrant to search the cell phone found on Defendant, but the cell phone’s contents could only be accessed with the entry of a password. At issue was whether requiring Defendant to enter the cell phone’s password would violate his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. A trial judge concluded that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Defendant’s knowledge of the password was a “foregone conclusion” under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and denied the Commonwealth’s motion and renewed motion to compel Defendant to produce the password. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s knowledge of the password was a foregone conclusion and not subject to the protections of the Fifth Amendment and article 12. View "Commonwealth v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice denying Petitioner’s petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice correctly denied the petition because there were adequate alternative routes available to Petitioner to seek and obtain review of his claims.Petitioner was convicted of possessing counterfeit currency, uttering a counterfeit note, and larceny by false pretenses of property not exceeding $250 in value. Years later, Petitioner filed this petition alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal and that his convictions were wrongful in several different aspects. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the errors raised in the petition either were or could have been raised on direct appeal, the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying the petition. View "Tavares v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and of carrying a firearm without a license, holding that Defendant’s claims of evidentiary errors and improper argument during the prosecutor’s closing did not require a reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Defendant’s statement to the police; (2) it was error to admit certain extraneous firearm evidence, but there was not substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (3) a rhetorical question and answer in the prosecutor’s closing argument did not rise to the level of reversible error, and the prosecutor’s description of Defendant as “leader of the pack” and “Alpha dog” did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; and (4) there was no basis to set aside or reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Collazo" on Justia Law