Creedon v. Haynes (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-169-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-184 Appeals Court LAURA MARIE CREEDON vs. JOSEPH E. HAYNES, SR. No. 16-P-184. Suffolk. October 13, 2016. – December 6, 2016. Present: Wolohojian, Carhart, & Shin, JJ. Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. Contempt. Divorce and Separation, Agreement respecting life insurance, Judgment. Probate Court, Judgment. Judgment. Complaint for divorce filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on June 14, 1990. A complaint for contempt, filed on November 4, 2011, was heard by Jeremy A. Stahlin, J.; entry of an order dismissing the contempt complaint was ordered by Abbe L. Ross, J., and a motion for postjudgment relief was heard by her. Laura Marie Creedon, pro se. WOLOHOJIAN, J. The mother appeals from the dismissal of her contempt complaint by a judge of the Probate and Family Court, who was not the trial judge. We vacate the order dismissing her complaint and order that judgment enter reflecting the trial judge’s decision. The parties[1] entered into a separation agreement on March 15, 1995, which was incorporated, but did not merge (with the exception of provisions relating to the parties’ unemancipated children), into a judgment of divorce nisi. Among other things, the agreement provided that the father “agrees to designate the minor children as beneficiaries of his life insurance policy presently in place with the . . . [f]ire [d]epartment” of the town of Lexington (town), which the father, during negotiations, represented had a value of $ 100,000. In fact, there was no such policy, and the father never designated his children as beneficiaries. Upon learning this, the mother filed a complaint for contempt in 2011. At the first day of the contempt trial, the mother produced a letter from the town manager certifying that the father did not have life insurance in place at the time of the separation agreement. The father did not contest that fact, but represented that he had instead a line-of-duty death benefit[2] for which he had designated the children as beneficiaries. Based on this representation, the trial judge continued the matter to determine whether the father had a line-of-duty death benefit and, if so, the identifies of the named beneficiaries.[3] The father did not appear at the subsequent (and final) day of trial. The mother, however, did, and produced additional […]
Commonwealth v. Haynes (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-030-13)
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 11‑P‑1947 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. ISHMAL HAYNES. No. 11‑P‑1947. February 21, 2013. Firearms. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure. Search and Seizure, Motor vehicle, Protective sweep. Evidence, Firearm. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. The defendant is charged with carrying a firearm (subsequent offense), unlawful possession of ammunition, unlawful possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number. After the allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress, the Commonwealth brought this interlocutory appeal. We reverse. Facts. The defendant’s arrest and discovery of the gun and ammunition in his rental car occurred on November 8, 2009, a Sunday night, shortly after 9:30 P.M. While patrolling in what they knew to be a high crime area of the Dorchester section of Boston,[1] State Trooper Walter Foley and Boston police Officers Anthony Serra and Daniel Griffin stopped the defendant after he had committed several traffic violations. When Trooper Foley asked the defendant for his license and registration, the defendant “reached to his glove box. He opened it and shut it quickly without reaching inside. The defendant did not look into the glove box, although his head was facing that way. The defendant did not retrieve anything from the glove box. “The defendant leaned quickly with his right hand toward the floor. He sat up and put his right hand under his thigh. Trooper Foley could not see what, if anything, the defendant had in his right hand. Officer Serra saw that the defendant had taken a tissue from the floor and had put it under his thigh.” Based on those gestures and “the frequency of violent crimes in the area, Trooper Foley and Officer Serra became concerned that the defendant might be getting or concealing a weapon in the car.” The defendant was therefore ordered out of his car and Trooper Foley searched the vehicle’s interior. During the search, Trooper Foley noticed that the plastic panel around the radio on the front console was slightly ajar in the bottom right area of the radio, and that the panel was not seated properly against the main part of the console. Based on his experience and training that voids behind vehicle panels are often used to hide guns or illegal drugs, Trooper Foley put his fingers […]