Posts tagged "Thompson"

Thompson, et al. v. Civil Service Commission, et al. (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-144-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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   15-P-330                                        Appeals Court   PRESTON THOMPSON & others[1]  vs.  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & another[2] (and a companion case[3]).     No. 15-P-330.   Suffolk.     May 10, 2016. – October 7, 2016.   Present:  Cypher, Blake, & Henry, JJ.     Civil Service, Police, Termination of employment, Testing, Reinstatement of personnel, Decision of Civil Service Commission.  Labor, Police, Collective bargaining, Discharge.  Municipal Corporations, Police, Collective bargaining.  Police, Discharge, Collective bargaining.  Public Employment, Police, Collective bargaining, Termination, Reinstatement of personnel.  Administrative Law, Substantial evidence.  Damages, Back pay.       Civil actions commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 3, 2013.   After consolidation, the case was heard by Judith Fabricant, J., on motions for judgment on the pleadings.     Alan H. Shapiro (John M. Becker with him) for Preston Thompson & others. Helen G. Litsas for Boston Police Department. Amy Spector, Assistant Attorney General, for Civil Service Commission.     BLAKE, J.  Between 2001 and 2006, ten officers of the Boston police department (department) submitted hair samples to the department that tested positive for cocaine.  In response, the department terminated their employment.  The ten officers appealed the terminations to the Civil Service Commission (commission).  After extensive hearings, the commission issued a decision upholding the terminations of Preston Thompson, Rudy Guity, Oscar Bridgeman, and William Bridgeforth (hereinafter, four officers), and overturning the terminations of Richard Beckers, Ronnie Jones, Jacqueline McGowan, Shawn Harris, Walter Washington, and George Downing (hereinafter, six reinstated officers or six officers), who were ordered to be reinstated with back pay and benefits to the date the commission hearings commenced. The department and each of the ten officers filed a complaint for judicial review.[4]  A judge of the Superior Court affirmed the commission’s decision, modifying only the back pay and benefits awards for the six reinstated officers to the date of each of their respective terminations.  The four officers appeal, claiming that the department lacked just cause for their terminations.  The department cross-appeals, claiming that there was substantial evidence to warrant the termination of the six reinstated officers.[5]  We affirm. Background.  1.  Legal framework.  A tenured civil service employee who is aggrieved by a disciplinary decision of an appointing authority may appeal to the commission.  See G. L. c. 31, § 41.  After finding facts anew, the commission then must determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the appointing authority met […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 7, 2016 at 4:42 pm

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

Commonwealth v. Thompson (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-061-16)

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   14-P-886                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BRENISHA THOMPSON. No. 14-P-886. Middlesex.     March 24, 2016. – June 3, 2016.   Present:  Katzmann, Rubin, & Wolohojian, JJ.     Fraud.  False Impersonation & Identity Fraud.  Receiving Stolen Goods.  Evidence, Fraud.  Constitutional Law, Police power, Assistance of counsel, Harmless error.  Due Process of Law, Jurisdiction over nonresident, Assistance of counsel.  Jurisdiction, Nonresident.  Error, Harmless.  Practice, Criminal, Duplicative convictions, Lesser included offense, Assistance of counsel, Harmless error.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 26, 2012.   The cases were tried before Sandra L. Hamlin, J.     Patricia E. Muse for the defendant. Melissa Weisgold Johnsen, Assistant District Attorney (Charles A. Koech, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.      KATZMANN, J.  The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of two counts of credit card fraud over $ 250 in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 37C(e); two counts of credit card fraud under $ 250 in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 37B(g); two counts of identity fraud in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 37E(b); one count of receiving stolen property with a value in excess of $ 250 in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 60; and one count of attempted credit card fraud in violation of G. L. c. 274, § 6.  The defendant now appeals.  She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the identity fraud convictions and the credit card fraud convictions relating to one of the victims. We conclude that the defendant’s identity fraud convictions are duplicative of her credit card fraud convictions, and that her conviction of receiving a stolen purse is legally inconsistent with her conviction of obtaining that purse through fraudulent use of a credit card.  Accordingly, we reverse and vacate the defendant’s convictions of identity fraud and receiving stolen property.  We conclude that jurisdiction on the credit card fraud charges was properly laid in Massachusetts.  Although it was error to admit the contested portions of a voicemail message the defendant left for the investigating detective in which she indicates that she would not talk with him unless an attorney was present and that she was asserting her right not to speak, we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the error does not require reversal of the remaining convictions in the context of the trial as a whole.  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 3, 2016 at 9:00 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Thompson (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-069-15)

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   14-P-191                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  LLOYD W. THOMPSON. No. 14-P-191. Plymouth.     February 4, 2015. – June 26, 2015.   Present:  Green, Grainger, & Massing, JJ. Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence.  Vessel, Alcoholic liquors.  Evidence, Blood alcohol test.  Constitutional Law, Blood test.  Due Process of Law, Blood alcohol test.  Consent.  Search and Seizure, Consent.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 19, 2011.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Cornelius J. Moriarty, II, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Barbara A. Lenk, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by her to the Appeals Court.     Gail M. McKenna, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. James J. Cipoletta for the defendant.     GRAINGER, J.  The defendant was indicted for operating a vessel under the influence of alcohol pursuant to G. L. c. 90B, § 8A.  The Commonwealth appeals from a Superior Court judge’s order allowing the defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a blood test administered after his arrest. Background.  We recite the facts relevant to the issue on appeal as found by the judge which, in any event, are undisputed.  The defendant was operating his boat in Hull harbor when he struck a moored sailboat.  His passenger was ejected from the boat, suffered severe blunt force neck trauma and later died as a result of her injuries.  The defendant complained of a leg injury and was transported by ambulance to the South Shore hospital after being placed under arrest by police who had arrived on the scene responding to a report of the accident.[1]  At the conclusion of the defendant’s medical treatment, the arresting officer asked the defendant for consent to give a blood sample for chemical testing.  The officer testified that he read the defendant his rights “word-for-word” from the consent form created for a violation of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, G. L. c. 90, § 24. Several hours later the defendant signed a separate consent form required by the hospital and the nurse took the defendant’s blood sample.[2]  Before trial the defendant moved to suppress the results of the blood sample, alleging that he did not give effective consent.  The judge allowed the motion and […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 27, 2015 at 12:06 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Thompson (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-184-14)

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-11623   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  WALTER THOMPSON.       November 10, 2014.   Controlled Substances.  “School Zone” Statute.  Statute, Amendment, Retroactive application.     After a jury trial, Walter Thompson was convicted of distributing cocaine and doing so in a school zone.  While his appeal was pending in the Appeals Court, the school zone statute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32J, was amended to reduce the radius of the school zone from 1,000 feet to 300 feet.  St. 2012, c. 192, § 30.  In an unpublished decision, a panel of the Appeals Court ruled that this amendment did not have retroactive effect, rejected Thompson’s other claims of error, and affirmed the convictions.  Commonwealth v. Thompson, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 1135 (2013).  We granted Thompson’s application for further appellate review.  467 Mass. 1101 (2014).  We now affirm the convictions, on somewhat different grounds.   Evidence.  We review the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.  Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 (1979).  On July 31, 2008, at approximately 10 P.M., Cambridge police Detectives Kevin Branley and Ed Liberacki were conducting patrols in Cambridge.  From their parked, unmarked vehicle, they observed (Branley using binoculars) Michael Benoit and Lori Quigley sitting on a curb in the parking lot of a convenience store on the corner of Prospect Street and Broadway.  Both detectives were experienced in detecting street-level narcotics sales and were familiar with this parking lot from previous narcotics investigations.  Benoit and Quigley were counting change in their open hands and looking furtively in all directions.  Quigley stood and made a call at a pay telephone attached to the side of the convenience store.  After about twenty seconds, she hung up the telephone and returned to the curb, where she and Benoit continued looking up and down the streets.  Quigley paced as she did so.  After about ten minutes, Thompson approached on bicycle on Broadway from the direction of Harvard Square.  He rode through the parking lot and, without stopping, exchanged a few words with Quigley.  Thompson, with Quigley following him at a hurried pace, continued on Prospect Street and stopped at a nearby house.  As Quigley approached him, they looked back and forth at each other and all around in all directions.  Quigley extended her hands toward Thompson, with one palm open and facing up, and the other in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 10, 2014 at 10:07 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,