Posts tagged "Gray"

Gray, et al. v. Attorney General, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-092-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12064   STEPHANIE GRAY & others[1]  vs.  ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.[2]       Suffolk.     May 2, 2016. – July 1, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Initiative.  Constitutional Law, Initiative petition.  Attorney General.  Education, Standards.       Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on January 22, 2016.   The case was reported by Cordy, J.     Thaddeus A. Heuer (Andrew M. London with him) for the plaintiffs. Juliana deHaan Rice, Assistant Attorney General (Michael B. Firestone, Assistant Attorney General, with her) for the defendants.     BOTSFORD, J.  The Attorney General has certified an initiative petition that concerns, and seeks to end, the use of the Common Core State Standards (common core standards) in defining the educational curriculum of publicly funded elementary and secondary students in the Commonwealth.  The petition also concerns the standardized testing process used in Massachusetts school districts:  it would require the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education (commissioner) to publicly release each year all of the questions and other “test items” included in the prior year’s comprehensive assessment tests that all publicly funded students in elementary and secondary schools are required to take.  The plaintiffs, a group of Massachusetts voters, challenge the Attorney General’s certification of the petition and seek to enjoin the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) from placing the proposed measure on the 2016 Statewide ballot on a number of grounds.  We conclude, as the plaintiffs argue, that the Attorney General’s certification of Initiative Petition 15-12 did not comply with art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution because it contains provisions that are not related or mutually dependent.[3]  It is therefore unnecessary to consider the plaintiffs’ other challenges. 1.  Background.[4]  The common core standards were developed in 2009 as part of a State-led initiative that included governors and commissioners of education from forty-eight States, two territories, and the District of Columbia working as members of the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.  The purpose of the initiative was to create consistent learning goals to ensure that all students graduate from high school with the requisite preparation for “college, career, and life.”  See Development Process, Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/development-process/ […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 1, 2016 at 6:03 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Gray (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-027-14)

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‑1277                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  WILLIAM GRAY.     No. 12‑P‑1277. Hampden.     November 5, 2013.  ‑  March 17, 2014. Present:  Cypher, Brown, & Fecteau, JJ.     Assault and Battery.  Practice, Criminal, Bill of particulars, Variance.  Evidence, Collateral matter.  Due Process of Law, Elements of criminal offense.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 5, 2009.   The case was tried before Richard J. Carey, J.; a motion to set aside the verdict was considered by him, and a motion for reconsideration was heard by him.     Katherine E. McMahon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Deborah Bates Riordan for the defendant.     BROWN, J.  After a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of a single count of assault and battery and was acquitted of extortion by threats, improper use of a credit card, and unarmed robbery.  The day after the trial concluded, the defendant moved to set aside the jury’s guilty verdict; the motion was denied.  The defendant later moved for reconsideration, and after a nonevidentiary hearing, the trial judge allowed the motion in a written memorandum of decision.  The Commonwealth has appealed. The charges arose from an incident that occurred after the victim had consensual sex with the defendant at the defendant’s apartment.  Relevant to the single count on which the defendant was convicted, the Commonwealth proffered evidence that showed, after the sex act, at about 4:00 P.M., the victim, at the defendant’s request, drove him to a nearby Friendly’s Restaurant (Friendly’s), where in the parking lot, a disagreement erupted.  According to the victim, the defendant demanded payment for the sexual encounter and when the victim refused, the defendant grabbed the registration documents and other paperwork from the glove compartment of the victim’s vehicle.  When the victim tried to stop him, the defendant struck him multiple times in the head, breaking the victim’s tooth and cutting his ear.  The victim described a series of subsequent events that were the foundation for the additional charges of which the defendant was acquitted. The bill of particulars the Commonwealth provided to the defendant before trial mirrored this version of events as well as the evidence presented to the grand jury.  In relation to the assault and battery charge, the document stated that it occurred at “Friendly’s […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 18, 2014 at 3:43 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Gray (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-181-13)

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     SJC‑11323     COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOHN GRAY.     October 17, 2013.     Motor Vehicle, Operating under the influence.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress.  Search and Seizure, Roadblock by police.  Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Roadblock by police.       The defendant was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI), third offense, after he was stopped, and subsequently arrested, at a sobriety checkpoint conducted by the State police in September, 2010.  He filed a motion to suppress evidence related to his arrest, arguing that the screening officer — the officer who made the initial stop of the vehicles passing through the checkpoint — failed to comply with the applicable guidelines for that specific checkpoint.  After a hearing, a judge in the District Court allowed the motion.  The Commonwealth thereafter sought leave from a single justice of this court to pursue an interlocutory appeal.  The single justice allowed the Commonwealth’s application and directed the appeal to the Appeals Court.     The Commonwealth argued before the Appeals Court that the key finding of fact that formed the basis for the judge’s decision to allow the motion was clearly erroneous.  The judge had found that the screening officer, Sergeant Paul D’Auteuil, improperly asked the defendant questions such as where he was coming from and whether he had anything to drink before Sergeant D’Auteuil had observed any articulable signs of intoxication.  Sergeant D’Auteuil clearly testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress, however, that he did not ask any questions of the defendant (or any other driver passing through the sobriety checkpoint) until after he had observed signs of possible intoxication.  There was no evidence to the contrary.  The Commonwealth also argued, before the Appeals Court, that the guidelines applicable to the checkpoint allowed Sergeant D’Auteuil to question the defendant as he did — after observing signs of intoxication — and that if the judge had not erred in finding that Sergeant D’Auteuil questioned the defendant before observing signs of intoxication, the judge would have denied the motion to suppress because what Sergeant D’Auteuil actually did complied with the applicable guidelines.   A panel of the Appeals Court agreed with the Commonwealth that the judge’s decision was based on a clearly erroneous fact and, on that basis, reversed the order allowing the motion to suppress in an unpublished […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 17, 2013 at 11:43 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Gray (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-098-13)

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     SJC‑10782   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  TERRY GRAY.     Suffolk.     October 5, 2012.  ‑  June 5, 2013. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.       Homicide.  Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.  Constitutional Law, Severability, Search and seizure, Jury.  Evidence, Scientific test, Argument by prosecutor.  Practice, Criminal, Severance, Jury and jurors, Voir dire, Instructions to jury, Argument by prosecutor, Motion to suppress, Capital case.  Search and Seizure, Consent, Protective sweep, Inevitable discovery.  Jury and Jurors.  Deoxyribonucleic Acid.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 29, 2005.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Charles J. Hely, J.; a motion for relief from prejudicial joinder was heard by Frank M. Gaziano, J., and the cases were tried before him.     David H. Mirsky for the defendant. Allison Callahan, Assistant District Attorney (Masai-Maliek King, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.       DUFFLY, J.  The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of murder in the first degree for the shooting of his uncle, Charlie Wilson, on July 9, 2005; assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon of MacArthur Powell, another uncle, on June 16, 2005; and related firearm and ammunition offenses.  The jury were unable to reach a verdict on indictments charging the defendant with murder in the first degree of James Gray, the defendant’s stepfather, and with firearm and ammunition charges related to that offense.  The Commonwealth’s theory at trial was that the defendant killed or assaulted the victims because he believed that each of them had sexually molested him as a child. The defendant claims that joinder of the indictment charging assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon with the indictments charging murder in the first degree was unfairly prejudicial, and that his motion to sever the indictments should have been allowed.  The defendant contends also that questions the judge asked the venire concerning their ability fairly to evaluate the evidence notwithstanding the absence of physical evidence such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or fingerprints linking the defendant to the crimes should not have been asked and, in conjunction with the prosecutor’s closing argument referencing those questions, suggested to the jury that they could not consider the Commonwealth’s failure to produce such evidence or to […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 5, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

What Sold in the South End: Gray Street Condo for $641K

Realtors & Homeowners: 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 & Videos” button below the photos and follow the directions. The property’s address, sale price, listing agent and other details can be included in the photo’s caption. Here’s 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 21 Cross Street Single Family, 3 Beds/3.5 Baths, 2343 sq. ft. $ 1,010,000   $ 949,000   Hammond Residential, Nancy Roth North End 23 Fleet Street #9 Condo, 1 Bed/1 Bath, 452  sq. ft. $ 340,000   $ 399,000   CL Waterfront Properties, Carmela Laurella Beacon Hill   13 S Russell St #3 Condo, 2 Beds/1 Bath, 527 sq. ft. $ 400,000   $ 399,000   Mark H. Sulham, Mark Sulham Back Bay   333 Commonwealth Avenue #4 Condo, 2 Beds/2 Baths, 1552 sq. ft $ 1,150,000   $ 1,150,000   Tracey Ann Smith, Coldwell Banker South End 53 Gray St #1 Condo, 2 Beds/1 Bath, 856 sq. ft. $ 641,000   $ 600,000   Dave Crowley, Coldwell Banker   “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

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am

Categories: Arrests   Tags: , , , , ,