Commonwealth v. Okoro (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-047-15)
Mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility after fifteen years for juvenile murderer does not violate Eighth Amendment or state constitution.
SJC Opinions
Commonwealth v. Dagraca-Teixeira (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-045-15)
Heroin possession convictions affirmed; firearm possession convictions reversed where Commonwealth failed to establish defendants' knowledge of and intent to control weapons concealed in attic.
Fitzgerald v. District Court Department of the Trial Court (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-044-15)
Guilty plea challenge to forced medication must use motion for new trial, not extraordinary superintendence petition under Chapter 211, Section 3.
Commonwealth v. Didas (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-043-15)
Mandatory minimum sentence reduction applies retroactively; redefined drug weights do not. Crime Bill amendments to trafficking statute apply prospectively to weights but retroactively to sentences.
Commonwealth v. Augustine (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-042-15)
Indigent defendant cannot recover appellate attorney's fees when private counsel agreed to represent him without charge and he incurred no actual financial obligation.
Chief of Police of the City of Worcester v. Holden (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-041-15)
Police chief properly denied firearm license based on domestic violence incident five years earlier, despite criminal dismissal and absence of conviction.
Abate v. Fremont Investment & Loan, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-040-15)
Property owner lacked record title necessary to bring try title action challenging mortgage assignment and foreclosure; court may consider merits to determine standing.
Soucy v. Commonwealth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-039-15)
Interlocutory review of motion to dismiss denial unavailable absent showing that post-trial appellate review would be inadequate. Double jeopardy exception does not extend to statutory interpretation claims.
Commonwealth v. Arzola (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-038-15)
Eyewitness identification not impermissibly suggestive where victim identified defendant based on facial features despite defendant being only person wearing gray shirt in array. DNA analysis of lawfully seized evidence limited to identity purposes is not a search requiring warrant.
Ortiz v. Examworks, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-036-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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…