Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court clarified the application of the Florida v. Jardines warrant requirement to a search in a multifamily home. The Court held (1) the side yard of Defendant’s multifamily home in this case was a “constitutionally protected area," and law enforcement’s intrusion into that area to search for a weapon implicated the constitutional warrant requirement; and (2) the superior court properly allowed Defendants’ motions to suppress the loaded sawed-off shotgun found under the porch because the warrantless intrusion here was an unlawful physical intrusion into the curtilage of the residence, therefore violating the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. View "Commonwealth v. Leslie" on Justia Law

A jury found Earl T. Fulgiam and Michael T. Corbin guilty as joint venturers of murder in the first degree of Kevin Thomas, Jr. and Billie Marie Kee. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and declined to grant relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting certain cellular telephone records; (2) the admission of fingerprint cards attributed to Defendants did not violate Defendants’ right to confront witnesses against them; (3) the trial judge did not err in admitting a fingerprint analyst’s testimony related to the fingerprint analysis; and (4) the prosecutor permissibly inferred that a “team” of men committed the murders. View "Commonwealth v. Fulgiam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and deliberate premeditation, holding that there was no error in this case warranting reversal, nor was there any reason for the Court to exercise its authority under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E to reduce the verdict or order a new trial. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress a statement Defendant made to police; (2) the evidentiary rulings challenged by Defendant were unavailing; (3) there was no prejudicial error in the jury instructions; (4) the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to dismiss several jurors for cause; (5) any potential prejudice to Defendant from the prosecutor’s closing argument was mitigated by a comprehensive limiting instruction; and (6) Defendant’s mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole is constitutional. View "Commonwealth v. Colton" on Justia Law

Following a series of disciplinary reprimands and suspensions for misconduct, Plaintiff was removed from her positions as an assistant clerk-magistrate of the Salem Division of the District Court Department. Plaintiff brought this action challenging her removal, arguing that the decision to remove her exceeded the clerk-magistrate’s statutory authority, was arbitrary or capricious, and violated her due process rights. The superior court upheld the removal decision. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that it was appropriate for the clerk-magistrate to factor in the whole of Plaintiff’s disciplinary record in terminating her, and therefore, the clerk-magistrate’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious, due process was satisfied, and Plaintiff demonstrated no deviation from the governing statute or rules. View "Perullo v. Advisory Committee on Personnel Standards" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with offenses arising from alleged domestic violence. The Commonwealth and Defendant filed motions in limine regarding the admissibility of a record of a 911 call placed by the son of Defendant and the alleged victim. Defendant argued that the boy’s statements - including, “my dad just choked my mom” - were not excited utterances and that their admission would violate his right of confrontation right. The judge concluded that the statements were not excited utterances because the boy’s voice on the recording sounded “calm.” A single justice vacated the judge’s order excluding the recording. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the question is not whether the declarant shows “excitement,” but, rather, whether the declarant was acting spontaneously under the influence of the incident at the time the statements were made, and not reflexively. Remanded. View "Commonwealth v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and armed home invasion. After filing a notice of appeal, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial arguing that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present a defense of lack of criminal responsibility. Defendant also filed a second motion for a new trial. The trial court denied Defendant’s two motions for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and the orders denying the motions for a new trial and declined to reduce the verdict or grant a new trial, holding (1) the trial judge did not err in denying Defendant’s first motion for a new trial, as trial counsel’s decision to forgo further investigation of a lack of criminal responsibility defense based on mental illness was not error; and (2) Defendant’s remaining claims of error were either procedurally waived or without merit. View "Commonwealth v. Holland" on Justia Law

In 2005, a few weeks after Child was born, Child's Grandmother was appointed as Child’s permanent guardian and has remained so ever since. Mother filed this removal proceeding challenging the guardianship arrangement. In 2016, Child, through counsel, filed a motion to appoint counsel for her guardian. The motion was denied. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the case to the probate and family court for further proceedings, holding (1) a guardian who has a de facto parent relationship with her ward does not have a liberty interest in that relationship such that she has a procedural due process right to counsel; but (2) a probate and family court judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, grant a motion requesting counsel for a guardian in a removal proceeding where the judge concludes that doing so would materially assist in determining the best interests of the child. View "In re Guardianship of K.N." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, and a marked lanes violation. The charges stemmed from a single vehicle accident in which the vehicle Defendant was driving rolled over. Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude from her medical records evidence of a blood alcohol test taken after she was transported to the hospital based on her right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. A district court judge allowed the motion. A single justice vacated the trial judge’s order allowing the motion in limine and ordered that the blood alcohol test evidence was admissible. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that it was “eminently logical” that the blood alcohol test administered to Defendant was performed as a routine medical practice in the course of Defendant’s treatment following the accident. View "Commonwealth v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

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 Defendant’s convictions and the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial and declined to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E, holding (1) Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) Defendant was given a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense; and (3) the trial judge did not deprive Defendant of his right to a fair trial by denying Defendant’s request to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction. View "Commonwealth v. Gulla" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, arson of a dwelling house, and violating an abuse prevention order. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the convictions and declined to reduce the degree of guilt or to order a new trial, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions of murder in the first degree and arson; (2) the testimony of two expert witnesses did not violate Defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment; (3) Defendant’s custodial statements to police were obtained with a valid Miranda waiver and were voluntary; and (4) the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing. View "Commonwealth v. Sanchez" on Justia Law