Commonwealth v. Abrahams (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-034-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑1744 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBIN ABRAHAMS. No. 12‑P‑1744. Essex. October 8, 2013. ‑ April 2, 2014. Present: Rubin, Milkey, & Agnes, JJ. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Search and Seizure, Blood sample, Incarceration. Evidence, Blood sample. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Harmless error. Constitutional Law, Harmless error. Error, Harmless. Rape. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 9, 2007. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by David A. Lowy, J., and the cases were tried before him. David Hirsch for the defendant. Kenneth E. Steinfield, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. RUBIN, J. This case primarily presents a question about the proper construction of a statute governing the submission of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples by certain convicted offenders, St. 2003, c. 107, § 2. 1. Background. The defendant, Robin Abrahams, appeals from his 2010 convictions for burglary with assault on an occupant, G. L. c. 266, § 14, and forcible rape of a child, G. L. c. 265, § 22A. In 1991, the fifteen-year-old victim was raped in her bedroom on the second floor of a two-story apartment building in Newburyport where she lived with her mother, stepfather, and eleven-year-old brother. The victim awoke in the early morning hours to see the rapist, who had broken into the apartment, “standing over” her. The victim did not scream or cry out because she was scared and feared the defendant would hurt her. She was afraid he would harm her mother as well. After the defendant raped the victim, he left through a window. The victim was taken to a hospital, where a sexual assault evidence collection kit was provided to the police. The police also took custody of the sheets that had been on the victim’s bed, among other things. As detailed below, more than fifteen years after the crimes, the defendant was identified as a suspect based on DNA evidence and, ultimately, convicted. In 1993, a chemist at the Massachusetts State police (MSP) crime laboratory identified seminal fluid in multiple areas of the victim’s bed sheets. In January, 2004, the laboratory sent a cutting from one of the sheets to Orchid Cellmark, a private company, for DNA analysis. On August 19, 2005, the defendant was brought to the Essex County correctional facility (correctional facility) from another State based […]
Holmes v. Holmes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-061-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11538 ELAINE M. HOLMES vs. KENNETH E. HOLMES. Essex. December 3, 2013. ‑ April 2, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Divorce and Separation, Alimony, Modification of judgment. Statute, Amendment. Words, “General term alimony”. Complaint for divorce filed in the Essex Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on May 31, 2006. The case was heard by Amy L. Blake, J., and a complaint for modification, filed on July 20, 2011, was heard by her. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. William Sanford Durland, III for the defendant. James M. Walsh for the plaintiff. GANTS, J. Under the Alimony Reform Act of 2011, St. 2011, c. 124 (reform act), “[i]f the length of the marriage is [twenty] years or less, but more than [fifteen] years, general term alimony shall continue for not more than [eighty] per cent of the number of months of the marriage” unless the judge makes a written finding that deviation beyond this time limit is required in the interest of justice. G. L. c. 208, § 49 (b) (4). The issue presented in this case is whether alimony paid under a temporary support order during the pendency of a divorce proceeding, pursuant to G. L. c. 208, § 17 (temporary alimony), must be included in calculating the maximum presumptive duration of general term alimony under § 49 (b). We conclude that temporary alimony is separate and distinct from general term alimony, and that the duration of temporary alimony is not included in calculating the maximum presumptive duration of general term alimony. We also conclude that, where temporary alimony is unusually long in duration or where the party receiving temporary alimony has caused unfair delay in the issuance of a final judgment in order to prolong the length of time in which alimony may be paid, a judge in her discretion may consider the duration of temporary alimony in determining the duration of general term alimony. Background. Kenneth Holmes (husband) and Elaine Holmes (wife) were married on May 25, 1991, and have three children. The wife filed a complaint for divorce on May 31, 2006. On June 12, 2006, and again on November 3, 2006, in accordance with the parties’ written agreement, the judge […]
Retirement Board of Somerville v. Buonomo, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-062-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11413 RETIREMENT BOARD OF SOMERVILLE vs. JOHN BUONOMO & others.[1] Middlesex. January 9, 2014. ‑ April 2, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Retirement. Public Employment, Forfeiture of retirement benefits. Register of Probate. Practice, Civil, Action in nature of certiorari. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 20, 2010. Motions for judgment on the pleadings were heard by Thomas R. Murtagh, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Matthew J. Buckley for the plaintiff. Nicholas Poser for the defendant. SPINA, J. In 2009, John Buonomo was convicted of eighteen counts of breaking into a depository, G. L. c. 266, § 16, eight counts of larceny under $ 250, G. L. c. 266, § 30 (1), and eight counts of embezzlement by a public officer, G. L. c. 266, § 51. He committed these offenses during the time that he held office as register of probate of Middlesex County. At issue is whether, pursuant to G. L. c. 32, § 15, and as a consequence of his convictions, Buonomo forfeited the retirement allowance that he previously had earned as a member of the board of aldermen for the city of Somerville. Based on the language and intent of G. L. c. 32, § 15 (4), inserted by St. 1987, c. 697, § 47, we conclude that even though Buonomo’s convictions involved violations of the laws applicable to his office or position as register of probate, he nonetheless forfeited his entitlement to a retirement allowance from the retirement board of Somerville (board) related to his prior service as a member of the board of aldermen. There is no requirement in § 15 (4) that the public office to which a member’s criminal convictions relate be the same as the public office from which that member is receiving a retirement allowance. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Superior Court that reached a contrary conclusion. 1. Statutory framework. The provisions of G. L. c. 32, § 15, pertain to dereliction of duty by a member of a contributory retirement system for public employees. See State Bd. of Retirement v. Bulger, 446 Mass. 169, 170 (2006). General Laws c. 32, § 15 (4), provides: “In no event shall any member after final conviction of a criminal offense involving violation of the laws applicable to his office […]
Categories: News Tags: 1006214, Board, Buonomo, Lawyers, Retirement, Somerville, Weekly
Commonwealth v. Sealy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-059-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11416 COMMONWEALTH vs. TYRONE SEALY. Suffolk. January 9, 2014. ‑ April 1, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Alien. Rape. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses. Practice, Criminal, Confrontation of witnesses, Discovery, Waiver. Evidence, Cross‑examination, Impeachment of credibility, Motive, Bias, Relevancy and materiality, Privileged record. Witness, Cross‑examination, Impeachment, Bias. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 22, 2006. A pretrial motion for production of privileged third-party records was heard by Carol S. Ball, J.; the case was tried before Thomas E. Connolly, J.; a motion for posttrial discovery was heard by him; and a motion for a new trial, filed on January 21, 2010, was considered by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. James A. Reidy for the defendant. Amanda Teo, Assistant District Attorney (Holly Broadbent, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Susan M. Finegan, Andrew N. Nathanson, John B. Koss, & Kimberly A. Parr, for Boston Area Rape Crisis Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Eric A. Haskell, Anthony D. Mirenda, Jennifer Kirby Tanney, Stacy A. Malone, & Lindy L. Aldrich, for Victim Rights Law Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. After a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of rape. His defense at trial was consent; he maintained that the victim, an undocumented immigrant, characterized consensual sex as rape in her report to police in order to obtain immigration benefits, such as eligibility for a “U-Visa.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) (2012). The defendant timely appealed from his convictions to the Appeals Court, where proceedings were stayed so that he could pursue a motion for a new trial. The defendant’s subsequent appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial was consolidated with his direct appeal, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. The rape conviction arose from events that occurred on March 19, 2006. The victim first complained of rape to the defendant’s mother on March 21, and sought counselling at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) on March 23. A BARCC staff member referred her to the Victims’ Rights Law Center (VRLC). There, she met with an attorney with whom she […]
Commonwealth v. Sealy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-059-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11416 COMMONWEALTH vs. TYRONE SEALY. Suffolk. January 9, 2014. ‑ April 1, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Alien. Rape. Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses. Practice, Criminal, Confrontation of witnesses, Discovery, Waiver. Evidence, Cross‑examination, Impeachment of credibility, Motive, Bias, Relevancy and materiality, Privileged record. Witness, Cross‑examination, Impeachment, Bias. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 22, 2006. A pretrial motion for production of privileged third-party records was heard by Carol S. Ball, J.; the case was tried before Thomas E. Connolly, J.; a motion for posttrial discovery was heard by him; and a motion for a new trial, filed on January 21, 2010, was considered by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. James A. Reidy for the defendant. Amanda Teo, Assistant District Attorney (Holly Broadbent, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Susan M. Finegan, Andrew N. Nathanson, John B. Koss, & Kimberly A. Parr, for Boston Area Rape Crisis Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Eric A. Haskell, Anthony D. Mirenda, Jennifer Kirby Tanney, Stacy A. Malone, & Lindy L. Aldrich, for Victim Rights Law Center & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. After a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of rape. His defense at trial was consent; he maintained that the victim, an undocumented immigrant, characterized consensual sex as rape in her report to police in order to obtain immigration benefits, such as eligibility for a “U-Visa.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) (2012). The defendant timely appealed from his convictions to the Appeals Court, where proceedings were stayed so that he could pursue a motion for a new trial. The defendant’s subsequent appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial was consolidated with his direct appeal, and we transferred the case to this court on our own motion. The rape conviction arose from events that occurred on March 19, 2006. The victim first complained of rape to the defendant’s mother on March 21, and sought counselling at the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) on March 23. A BARCC staff member referred her to the Victims’ Rights Law Center (VRLC). There, she met with an attorney with whom she […]
Categories: News Tags: Commonwealth