Posts tagged "Five"

Commonwealth v. Holley (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-197-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12130   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  REGINALD HOLLEY (and five companion cases[1]).       Suffolk.     September 8, 2017. – December 14, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Budd, & Kafker, JJ.     Homicide.  Robbery.  Firearms.  Joint Enterprise.  Felony-Murder Rule.  Search and Seizure, Warrant, Probable cause.  Constitutional Law, Probable cause.  Probable Cause.  Cellular Telephone.  Jury and Jurors.  Evidence, Joint enterprise, Prior misconduct.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Warrant, Instructions to jury, Jury and jurors, Deliberation of jury, Substitution of alternate juror, Severance.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 12, 2012.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Patrick F. Brady, J., and the cases were tried before him.     Elizabeth A. Billowitz for Reginald Holley. Neil L. Fishman for Oasis Pritchett. Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     LENK, J.  On the morning of October 17, 2012, Alfonso Rivas was in his apartment building anticipating a sale of marijuana to Reginald Holley when Rivas was fatally shot in the head.  Holley and Oasis Pritchett were convicted of felony-murder in the first degree, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm without a license, as joint venturers, in connection with the victim’s death.  Prior to trial, both defendants had moved unsuccessfully to suppress text messages obtained from their cellular service provider.  The text messages, which were introduced at trial, contained incriminating statements involving the defendants’ plan to steal marijuana from the victim on the morning of the shooting. In this direct appeal, Holley and Pritchett challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their felony-murder convictions and the introduction of their text messages at trial.  They argue also that the judge erred in declining to instruct the jury on felony-murder in the second degree, and in dismissing a deliberating juror who was ill.  Pritchett argues separately that the judge erred by denying his motion to sever, admitting evidence of prior bad acts, and declining to instruct the jury on the requirements of the hearsay exemption concerning joint venturer statements.  Each defendant also requests relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We affirm the convictions and, after careful review of the record, decline to set aside the verdicts or reduce the degree of guilt pursuant to our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Facts.  We recite the facts the jury […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 14, 2017 at 6:05 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Leslie (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-072-17)

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-12176   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BOBBY LESLIE (and five companion cases[1]).       Suffolk.     November 7, 2016. – May 9, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[2]     Firearms.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Privacy.  Search and Seizure, Multiple occupancy building, Curtilage, Expectation of privacy.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 16, 2014.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Charles M. Hely, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Hines, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by her to the Appeals Court.  The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Patrick Levin, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Bobby Leslie. MarySita Miles for Lacy Price.     HINES, J.  The defendants, Bobby Leslie and Lacy Price, were indicted on charges of unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun,[3] G. L. c. 269, § 10 (c); unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (n); and possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (1).[4]  The indictments arose from a May, 2014, warrantless search of the porch and side yard of a three-family home in the Dorchester section of Boston where the defendant Price resided.  The search revealed a loaded sawed-off shotgun under the porch.  Leslie was arrested at the scene, and after further investigation, Price was arrested.  A judge of the Superior Court allowed the defendants’ motions to suppress the sawed-off shotgun on the ground that a warrant was required to search the area under the porch in light of Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417 (2013), and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The Commonwealth filed a timely appeal from the allowance of the defendants’ motions to suppress.  A single justice of this court granted leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal and reported the case to the Appeals Court.  We allowed the defendants’ application for direct appellate review to clarify the application of the Jardines warrant requirement to a search in a multifamily home.  Following the analytical framework set out in Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1414-1417, we conclude that the side yard […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Mattier (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-065-16)

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-11924 SJC-11960   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BRANDEN E. MATTIER (and five companion cases[1]).       Suffolk.     January 7, 2016. – May 13, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Larceny.  False Impersonation & Identity Fraud.  Fraud.  Conspiracy.  Attempt.  Search and Seizure, Arrest.  Evidence, Identity, Fraud, Conspiracy.  Jury and Jurors.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Jury and jurors, Argument by prosecutor.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on August 29, 2013.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kenneth W. Salinger, J., and the cases were tried before Jeffrey A. Locke, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted applications for direct appellate review.     Rebecca A. Jacobstein, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Branden E. Mattier. William S. Smith for Domunique D. Grice. Randall E. Ravitz, Assistant Attorney General (Gina M. Masotta, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the Commonwealth.     HINES, J.  The defendants, Branden E. Mattier and his half-brother Domunique D. Grice, were convicted by a jury on indictments charging one count each of conspiracy to commit larceny, G. L. c. 274, § 7, and attempted larceny, G. L. c. 274, § 6.  Mattier also was convicted on an indictment charging one count of identity fraud, G. L. c. 266, § 37E.  The charges stemmed from an attempt by the defendants to defraud The One Fund Boston (One Fund) of approximately $ 2 million by claiming that a long-deceased aunt had been injured in the 2013 bombing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon.[2]  The judge imposed on each defendant a State prison sentence of from three years to three years and one day on the conspiracy count and three years’ probation on the attempted larceny count, to run from and after the committed sentence.  Mattier was sentenced to an additional concurrent probationary term for his conviction of identity fraud.  The defendants appealed, and we granted their applications for direct appellate review.[3] Although the appeals were not formally consolidated, we have treated them as such, given the substantial congruence of the issues raised by the defendants.[4]  Mattier contends that his conviction of identity fraud fails as a matter of law because the charged conduct is insufficient to meet the elements of the statute.  Both defendants claim that the judge erred in (1) denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 13, 2016 at 4:58 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Adoption of Douglas (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-022-16)

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-11918   ADOPTION OF DOUGLAS (and five companion cases[1]).     February 17, 2016. Adoption, Standing, Visitation rights, Care and protection.  Parent and Child, Adoption, Care and protection of minor.   Minor, Visitation rights, Care and protection.  Practice, Civil, Care and protection proceeding, Assistance of counsel.  Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts.   These cases are appeals of consolidated care and protection petitions concerning six children — Douglas, Tom, Brian, Mark, Cole, and Frank.  The appeals are brought by the biological mother of the six children; by the biological father of the two oldest children (father I) — Douglas and Tom; and by four of the children — Douglas, Tom, Brian, and Mark.  They appeal from the provisions of decrees of the Juvenile Court denying parental visitation after termination of the parental rights of the mother, father I, and the biological father of the four younger children (father II) — Brian, Mark, Cole, and Frank.[2]  The Appeals Court, in a memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28, dismissed the appeals of the mother and father I.  It concluded that neither had standing to challenge the orders concerning visitation because their parental rights had been terminated after the consolidated hearings, pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 26, and G. L. c. 210, § 3, were concluded, and they had not appealed from the entry of the termination decrees.  See Adoption of Douglas, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (2015).  With respect to the appeal of the four children, the Appeals Court affirmed the decrees of the Juvenile Court.  Id.  We granted further appellate review, and affirm the Juvenile Court judge’s decrees.   Background.  The Department of Children and Families (department) filed a care and protection petition on behalf of Douglas, Tom, Brian, and Mark, alleging neglect due to substance use and domestic abuse of all four children.  The department subsequently filed a care and protection petition on behalf of Cole and Frank, and the two petitions were consolidated.  On March 3, 2010, the mother, father I, and father II each stipulated to his or her current unfitness and that their respective children were in need of care and protection.[3]   On June 3 or 4, 2013, each of the parents submitted a written stipulation acknowledging his or her current unfitness, agreeing to the issuance of a decree terminating his or her respective parental […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 17, 2016 at 8:09 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Tewolde (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-154-15)

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   13-P-1689                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  YONAS TEWOLDE (and five companion cases[1]). No. 13-P-1689. Suffolk.     January 5, 2015. – October 1, 2015.   Present:  Katzmann, Sullivan, & Blake, JJ. Homicide.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Self-incrimination, Grand jury, Search and seizure, Probable cause.  Practice, Criminal, Admissions and confessions, Grand jury proceedings, Motion to suppress.  Witness, Privilege, Self-incrimination.  Search and Seizure, Expectation of privacy, Probable cause.  Probable Cause.  Cellular Telephone.     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 8, 2011.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Charles J. Hely, J.   Applications for leave to prosecute interlocutory appeals were allowed by Fernande R. V. Duffly, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeals were reported by her to the Appeals Court.     Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Elda S. James for Karl Prescott. Matthew A. Kamholtz for Yonas Tewolde.     KATZMANN, J.  This is an interlocutory appeal taken from rulings in a suppression proceeding, and presents the following questions:  whether a statement, given in an interview prior to grand jury testimony by a defendant who had been subpoenaed to testify after previously asserting that he did not wish to speak without an attorney, was voluntary; whether testimony before the grand jury was given in violation of the privilege against self-incrimination; and whether cellular tower data and cell site location information were obtained in violation of the protections against unreasonable searches and seizure. The case arises from the shooting murder of Paul Fagan.  The two defendants here, Yonas Tewolde and Karl Prescott, were each indicted on charges of murder in the first degree of Paul Fagan, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm.  They were both subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury; they did so testify, and subsequently moved to suppress that testimony.  Tewolde also submitted to an interview on June 7, 2010, prior to his grand jury testimony, and moved to suppress his interview statements.  A Superior Court judge (motion judge) allowed both of Tewolde’s motions to suppress, suppressing the interview statements on the grounds that Tewolde’s submission to the interview was involuntary and suppressing the grand jury testimony on the grounds that he should not have been compelled to testify […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 2, 2015 at 1:15 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Douglas (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-124-14)

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-1992                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JASON DOUGLAS (and five companion cases[1]). No. 12-P-1992. Suffolk.     January 13, 2014. – September 30, 2014.   Present:  Cypher, Rubin, & Hines, JJ.[2]     Firearms.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure.  Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Threshold police inquiry, Protective frisk.  Evidence, Firearm.  Threshold Police Inquiry.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 28, 2011.   Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Janet L. Sanders, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Robert J. Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court. Elisabeth Martino, Assistant District Attorney (Joseph Janezic, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Michael Tumposky for Jason Douglas. Daniel R. Katz for Wayne Steed.     CYPHER, J.  This is an appeal by the Commonwealth after a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court allowed the Commonwealth’s petition under Mass.R.Crim.P. 15, as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996).  In ruling on the defendants’ motions to suppress, a judge in the Superior Court held that the seizure by police officers of a firearm found under a passenger’s seat during a “patfrisk” of the interior of a motor vehicle was impermissible because, although the stop of the vehicle was justified, the police had exceeded the permissible scope of the search when they looked under the passenger’s seat before the occupants returned to the vehicle.  Specifically, the judge reasoned that “[a]ny suspicion which might have been prompted by any movement (or lack thereof) by the car’s occupants was dispelled by the removal and pat frisk of each individual’s person.”[3]  We reverse the order allowing the motions to suppress. 1.  Standard of review.  ”[W]e accept the motion judge’s subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error.”  Commonwealth v. Sinforoso, 434 Mass. 320, 321 (2001), quoting from Commonwealth v. Sanna, 424 Mass. 92, 97 (1997).  ”We review de novo the judge’s application of constitutional principles.”  Commonwealth v. Martin, 467 Mass. 291, 301 (2014).  We must assess the reasonableness of a police officer’s actions based upon the “circumstances confronting the officer in the field, not those facing the judge in the tranquility of the courtroom.” Commonwealth v. Dedominicis, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 76, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - September 30, 2014 at 6:42 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Five Horses Tavern to Open in South End This Weekend

According to Twitter, the new microbrew beer bar will be open by the weekend. South End Patch News

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 17, 2013 at 8:28 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Morgan RV Resorts, LLC, et al. (and five companion cases) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-089-13)

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       13‑P‑119                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MORGAN RV RESORTS, LLC, & others[1] (and five companion cases[2]). No. 13‑P‑119. Suffolk.     May 23, 2013.  ‑  July 9, 2013. Present:  Cypher, Kafker, & Sullivan, JJ.   Judge.  Practice, Civil, Disqualification of judge. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on August 22, 2011.   A motion for recusal was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.   Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on February 17, 2012.   A motion for recusal was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.   Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 14, 2010.   A motion for recusal was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on July 31, 2009.   A motion for recusal was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.   Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 3, 2011.   A motion for recusal was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.   Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on January 5, 2012.   A motion for recusal was heard by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.   Leave to prosecute interlocutory appeals was allowed in the Appeals Court by Kafker, J., and Sullivan, J.     Christa A. Arcos (Scott D. Burke with her) for Carmel Gilberti. Jonathan B. Engel, Assistant Attorney General (Mychii Snape, Assistant Attorney General, with him) for the Commonwealth.     KAFKER, J.  The issue presented is whether a judge who sued her former law firm for unpaid compensation and lost should have recused herself from cases involving that firm, four years after the Supreme Judicial Court decided the case.  Applying the two-part test set forth in Lena v. Commonwealth, 369 Mass. 571, 575 (1976), the judge concluded that she held no actual bias, and that no reasonable person would question her impartiality.  We agree that there is no basis for recusal on the grounds of actual bias.  However, given the protracted litigation, the judge’s personal involvement in the lawsuit, the amount at stake, and the judge’s inconsistent rulings on prior recusal motions, “an objective appraisal of whether this was ‘a proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned’” compels the conclusion that recusal was warranted.  Ibid., quoting from S.J.C. Rule 3:25, Canon 3(C)(1)(a), 359 Mass. 841 (1972).  Accordingly, we reverse […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Five Things, April 26

1. Weather: The National Weather Service predicts a sunny day with a high near 59. The evening will be cloudy with a low near 45.  2. Slow Flow + Core Yoga: All classes are taught as mid-level Vinyasa. Instructors give options and teach to the levels of students in the class. Beginners and experienced practitioners welcome. 3. Zumba® Class: The Z Spot is Boston’s 1st studio dedicated to Zumba® Fitness. We offer exhilarating, effective, easy-to-follow, Latin-inspired, calorie-burning dance classes that will help you get in shape while having a good time. 4. Reverberations: Anna Von Mertens: Enjoy the interplay of live improvisational piano, saxophone, electronic music and percussion amidst Anna Von Mertens’ ethereal, hand-stitched quilts.  In collaboration with Community Music Center of Boston. Part of the John Kleshinski Concert Series     5. Pericles by William Shakespeare: How much can one man take? Shakespeare presents us with the swirling tribulations of Pericles, whose journey involves a series of surprises and challenges that would test even the most resilient of men as he is flung from cruelly personal adversity to the ravages of storms. South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 26, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , ,

Five Things, April 25: New Moms Tea and Coffee Hour

1. Weather: The National Weather Service predicts a chance of showers in the morning, which should clear up. The temperature should reach about 63. The evening will cool off to 42. 2. New Moms Tea and Coffee Hour: Join in with other neighborhood new moms for a tea and coffee hour! Hot drinks, fruit and bagels are waiting for you — never served on paper or plastic because New Moms deserve special care for all the hard work they are doing! 3. Jumpstart Your Job Search with FREE Workforce Development Training: Boston Neighborhood Network’s Free Workforce Development Training Helps Unemployed and Underemployed Residents Gain New Skills to Impress Future Employers 4. Writing in the World: A Creative Workshop for Adults: Writing in the World: A Creative Writing Workshop for Adults is aimed at beginning writers who want to experiment with poetry and short fiction.  Writer and teacher Debka Colson will lead the group in discussing works by noted writers, peer review, writing exrecises, and a public reading.  5. South End Athletic Company Run Club: Fun runs from 652 Tremont St. Group drills and light workouts. South End Patch

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 25, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,

Next Page »