Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of money laundering, holding that the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish “concealment” money laundering, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 267A, 2(2)(ii)(A).Defendant’s conviction stemmed from her act of depositing more than $300,000 in stolen money into her checking account through a series of transactions, each under $10,000, and claiming to have received the money in an inheritance. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish a design to conceal under the statute where Defendant openly deposited the money into her checking account using her own name. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that Defendant’s deposits were designed, at least in part, to conceal the nature, location, source, ownership or control of the stolen funds. View "Commonwealth v. Braune" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court treating Petitioner’s paper titled “Respondent’s Petition for Interlocutory Appeal and Stay of Proceedings” as a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 and denying relief without a hearing, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing why he could not obtain relief on appeal.After the Commonwealth filed a petition in the superior court seeking civil commitment of Petitioner as a sexually dangerous person pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, Petitioner moved or an order preventing future dissemination of a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, 18(a) report by the district court for the purposes of the Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A proceeding. Petitioner then filed his petition seeking review of that interlocutory order. The single justice denied relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice properly declined to exercise the court’s extraordinary power of superintendence in light of an adequate alternative remedy. View "Crittenden v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree as a joint venturer and declined to exercise its authority to grant relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant was present at the scene, knowingly participated in the shooting, and had the mental state necessary to the offense.Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to warrant the jury’s finding that Defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation as a joint venturer; (2) while the exclusion of certain evidence would have been better practice, the admission of the evidence would not have had any impact on the jury’s verdict; and (3) allowing the presence of a police witness at the prosecutor’s table was not an abuse of the judge’s discretion. View "Commonwealth v. Javier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of a single justice of the court dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint seeking relief in the nature of mandamus, holding that there was no error.After Defendant prevailed in a summary process proceeding against Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging error with that proceeding and seeking relief from the judgment. The single justice concluded that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief because she failed to pursue other available remedies. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that relief in the nature of mandamus was not available where the ordinary appellate process would suffice and that Plaintiff failed timely to claim this appeal from the judgment entered in the county court. View "Briscoe v. LSREF3/AH Chicago Tenant, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a judgment of a single justice of the court denying Petitioner’s petition filed pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to review pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3.In his petition, Petitioner sought to have his convictions vacated and the indictments dismissed, to have certain evidence destroyed, and to have the Court commence investigations into various individuals associated with his case. The justice justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief. View "Kyricopoulos v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the single justice did not err or abuse his discretion by denying relief where Appellant did not carry his burden of showing why review of a trial court decision could not adequately be obtained on appeal or by other available means.Appellant was indicted on charges of home invasion and other offenses. Petitioner’s Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition sought relief from a superior court judge’s ruling allowing the Commonwealth’s motion for an order requiring Appellant to submit a buccal swab for purposes of deoxyribonucleic acid testing. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that Appellant, if convicted, an had adequate, alternate remedy in the normal appellate process. View "Aldana v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court judge’s order vacating the district court judge’s Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 58A (58A) pretrial detention order of David Barnes and affirmed the denial of William Scione’s petition for extraordinary relief, holding that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 275, 23A (23A) does not qualify as a predicate offense under section 58A in its current form and that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 102A (102A) qualified in this case.Barnes was charged with violating section 23A, and Scione was charged with violating section 102A. In both cases, the Commonwealth moved to detain the defendants pursuant to section 58A, the pretrial detention statute. The Commonwealth’s motions were allowed and the defendants were ordered held. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the superior court judge’s order vacating the pretrial detention order of Barnes and affirmed the denial of Scione’s petition for extraordinary relief, holding (1) rape aggravated by age difference, section 23A, does not qualify as a predicate offense under section 58A; and (2) use of an incendiary device in violation of section 102A qualifies as a predicate offense under section 58A. View "Scione v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for unlawful possession of drugs found within a locked glove compartment, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and that Defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel.In denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the motion judge found that the police had probable cause to arrest Defendant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana and that the search of the vehicle was justified as an inventory search. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge was warranted in finding that police had probable cause to believe that Defendant had operated a motor vehicle while impaired; and (2) while the motion judge’s decision to deny the motion to suppress was improper on the grounds that the police conducted a lawful inventory search, the officers had authority to search the vehicle, pursuant to the automobile exception, for evidence pertaining to the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. View "Commonwealth v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion for release from unlawful confinement and for a new sentencing hearing, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration following Defendant’s repeated addiction-related violations of probation over a period of several years.Defendant requested the sentence in order to participate in a secure residential drug treatment program. Several months after serving her sentence, however, Defendant sought release from what she termed as an unlawful restraint, as well as a new sentencing hearing. The motion was denied. On appeal, Defendant argued that, in setting the length of Defendant's sentence, the judge abused his discretion when he took into account the time requirements of the rehabilitative program Defendant wished to enter. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse his discretion in these limited circumstances. View "Commonwealth v. Plasse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding that none of Defendant’s arguments on appeal warranted reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment; (2) the judge did not improperly curtail Defendant’s cross-examination of two witnesses; (3) the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial; and (4) there was no basis to set aside or reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree. View "Commonwealth v. Hernandez" on Justia Law