Commonwealth v. Douglas, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-170-16)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT. 1184CR10964 1184CR10978 ____________________ COMMONWEALTH v. JASON DOUGLAS and WAYNE STEED ____________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 36 Jason Douglas and Wayne Steed are accused of constructively possessing a loaded firearm. The police searched a vehicle and found a loaded handgun under the front passenger seat where Douglas had been sitting and immediately in front of the right rear seat where Steed had been sitting. Both men were indicted for unlawfully possessing a firearm, a loaded firearm, and the ammunition in the gun.1 Several years passed while the legality of the vehicle search was litigated. Judge Sanders suppressed the firearm and ammunition. The Appeals Court affirmed, but the Supreme Judicial Court granted further appellate review and reversed.2 The Superior Court magistrate held a status conference in July 2016 and scheduled trial for October 12, 2016. Twelve days before trial the Commonwealth moved for a continuance so that its ballistician witness could attend a training program. Defendants objected, but the trial was continued to January 13, 2017. Defendants now move to dismiss all indictments against them on the ground that the twelve-month speedy trial time limit imposed by Mass. R. Crim. P. 36 has been exceeded. The Court concludes that it must ALLOW these motions because the Commonwealth has not met its burden of showing that continuing the trial from 1 The charges for possessing a loaded firearm and possessing the ammunition found in the gun are duplicative. See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 461 Mass. 44, 51-54 (2011). The charges for possessing a firearm and for possessing a loaded firearm are not duplicative, because the latter charge carries an enhanced penalty in addition to that imposed for the former charge. See Commonwealth v. Rivas, 466 Mass. 184, 189 n.7 (2013) (dictum); Commonwealth v. Charles, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 901, 902, rev’d in part, 461 Mass. 1108 (2012). 2 See Commonwealth v. Douglas, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 404 (2014), rev’d, 472 Mass. 439 (2015). – 2 – October 2016 to January 2017 was justified or required by the unavailability of an essential witness, and as a result the Rule 36 speedy trial clock has run out. The Commonwealth has not proved that the ballistician whose schedule it was seeking to accommodate was essential (because the Commonwealth could have proved its case with a substitute expert witness or with no ballistician at all) or that this witness was unavailable within the meaning of Rule 36 (because a police department employee is not unavailable merely because she or he would prefer to go to an out-of-state training program). 1. Legal Background. “Rule 36 ensures that defendants are brought to trial within a reasonable […]
Tusino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Douglas, et al. (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-107-16)
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-1400 Appeals Court 14-P-1193 LOUIS C. TUSINO vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF DOUGLAS & another[1] (and a companion case[2]). Nos. 15-P-1400 & 14-P-1193. Worcester. June 3, 2016. – August 25, 2016. Present: Vuono, Wolohojian, & Blake, JJ. Jurisdiction, Zoning. District Court, Jurisdiction, Appellate Division. Zoning, Appeal. Appeals Court, Jurisdiction. Practice, Civil, Zoning appeal, Appellate Division: appeal, Action in nature of mandamus, Moot case. Mandamus. Moot Question. Civil action commenced in the Uxbridge Division of the District Court Department on December 8, 2014. The case was heard by David B. Locke, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on August 21, 2009. The case was heard by Robert B. Foster, J., on a motion for summary judgment. Gerald E. Shugrue for Louis C. Tusino. Henry J. Lane for Joseph Bylinski. Michael J. Kennefick for building commissioner of the town of Douglas, & another. WOLOHOJIAN, J. These two cases arise out of the construction of a house on a nonconforming lot in Douglas. The dispositive issue on appeal is whether we have jurisdiction over a direct appeal from a decision of the Uxbridge District Court in a zoning appeal under G. L. c. 40A, § 17. Concluding that we do not, we dismiss Tusino v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Douglas, 2015-P-1400 (zoning appeal). Because our disposition of this case renders moot Bylinski v. Guaranteed Builders, Inc., 14-P-1193 (mandamus appeal), we dismiss it as well. On July 8, 2008, Tusino obtained a building permit to build a house on a lot he owns in Douglas. Construction began in February, 2009, and Bylinski, who owns the adjacent property, immediately thereafter asked the building commissioner to revoke the permit. The commissioner denied that request, and Bylinski appealed to the zoning board (board). The appeal was constructively allowed, and the building permit was revoked. On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the revocation of the permit. Tusino did not further appeal, and the Superior Court’s decision became final. Tusino thereafter applied to the board for a variance. This too was denied. He appealed the denial to the Land Court, which entered summary judgment against him. On February 21, 2014, in a memorandum and order issued pursuant to our rule 1:28, we affirmed the […]
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 […]
Commonwealth v. Douglas (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-140-15)
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 SJC-11824 COMMONWEALTH vs. JASON DOUGLAS (and five companion cases[1]). Suffolk. April 6, 2015. – August 14, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Stop and frisk, Reasonable suspicion. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Protective sweep, Threshold police inquiry, Reasonable suspicion. Threshold Police Inquiry. Firearms. 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 Cordy, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him to the Appeals Court. After review by that court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Daniel R. Katz for Wayne Steed. Michael Tumposky for Jason Douglas. Donna Jalbert Patalano, Assistant District Attorney (Joseph F. Janezic, III, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. Following a traffic stop for a civil motor vehicle infraction (failure to use a directional signal) of a motor vehicle that they had had under surveillance, Boston police officers ordered first the rear seat passenger sitting behind the driver, then the rear seat passenger on the passenger’s side, to get out of the vehicle, and pat frisked each for weapons, on the suspicion that they were armed and dangerous. No weapons were found. While the rear seat passengers remained outside the vehicle, as instructed, the front seat passenger, defendant Jason Douglas, got out of the vehicle and was ordered to return to his seat. After he did so, he moved the gear shift in the center console to the “drive” position, while the driver kept her foot on the brake. Douglas was ordered from the vehicle and pat frisked, and the driver also was ordered from the vehicle. Finding no weapon on Douglas’s person, officers conducted a protective sweep of the vehicle. They discovered a loaded firearm under the front passenger seat. Douglas and his codefendant, Wayne Steed, who had been seated behind him, were charged with unlicensed possession of a firearm and related offenses.[2] Both defendants moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search. After […]
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, […]
What Sold in the South End: Douglas Park Condo for $352K
Realtors: Add your photos of recently sold homes to this gallery! It’s easy—just sign into your Patch account (or sign into Patch using your Facebook account). Click the “Upload Photos and Videos” button and follow the directions. The property’s address, sale price, listing agent and other details can be included in the photo’s caption. Below is a sampling of five home sales this week. Look at the photo gallery or the easy-to-scan chart below. Don’t forget to check out our Real Estate section. Neighborhood Address Details Sale Price List Price Listing Agent Charlestown 52 Harvard Street Single Family, 3 Beds/2 Baths, 1448 sq. ft. $ 685,000 $ 739,000 Hammond Residential, Noel M. Atamian North End 44 Snow Hill Street #4 Condo, 2 Beds, 1 Bath, 722 sq. ft. $ 520,000 $ 549,000 Otis & Ahearn – 84 Atlantic, Antonia Monarski Beacon Hill 24 Hancock Street #4 Condo, 2 Beds/1 Bath, 923 sq. ft. $ 699,000 $ 719,000 Core Property Group, LLC, Zach Barron Back Bay 416 Commonwealth Ave #611 Condo, 2 Beds/2 Baths, 1152 sq. ft. $ 885,000 $ 889,000 Marston Beacon Hill, Inc., Eliott Levine South End 3 Douglas Park #215 Condo, 2 Beds/1 Bath, 690 sq. ft $ 352,000 $ 349,900 Bettencourt Real Estate, Marco Bettencourt “Sold!” is a weekly column featuring the latest real estate sales in and around Boston. Photos and information compiled using MLS data, courtesy of Century 21 North Shore and Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage. SOUTH END PATCH: Facebook | Twitter | E-mail Updates South End Patch