Commonwealth v. Carlson (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-013-18)
Appeals Court reverses larceny conviction; single-photograph identification procedure was unconstitutionally suggestive absent good reason to use inherently suggestive method.
Appeals Court reverses larceny conviction; single-photograph identification procedure was unconstitutionally suggestive absent good reason to use inherently suggestive method.
SDP commitment permitted when petition filed during valid imprisonment, even if guilty pleas later vacated for trial error unrelated to statutory unconstitutionality.
Stock purchase agreement allocating tax liabilities; whether VAT receivables are "amounts credited against or with respect to Taxes" under preclosing tax provision; ambiguity affirmed; trial judgment upheld.
Housing Authority may evict tenant for keeping controlled substances where evidence shows tenant's purposeful use of apartment for drug consumption over time, even if limited to two occasions within a month.
Parental rights terminated for mother and father whose conduct exposed children to severe abuse. Mother's completion of service plan tasks insufficient when she refused to acknowledge her role in abuse and remained committed to abuser.
Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction over youthful offender indictments issued after defendant turned eighteen, judge held. Appeals Court reversed, finding statute permits prosecution between eighteenth and nineteenth birthdays.
Regional school district withdrawal legislation upheld as constitutional despite affecting only one town. Individual plaintiffs lacked standing; governmental entities cannot challenge state law constitutionality.
Husband sought to modify alimony using filing date of 1990 complaint; court held the relevant date is the 1994 joint petition on which judgment of divorce absolute entered.
Severance agreement's general release unambiguously extinguished employee's rights to preferred shares and stock options granted under prior employment agreement.
Cross-examination of lay witness improper but harmless; expert witness questioning not subject to innuendo rule; defendant's statements and Miranda waiver voluntary.