Gangi v. Massachusetts Parole Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-100-14)
CPSL sentence held unconstitutional; parolee not a "prisoner" for sexually dangerous person statute purposes; petition filed during unlawful sentence invalid.
Lawyers
Commonwealth v. Parrillo (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-101-14)
CPSL sentence vacated as unconstitutional delegation of judicial sentencing power to executive parole board; remanded for resentencing within double jeopardy constraints.
Commonwealth v. Torres (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-096-14)
Violation of an abuse prevention order is not a lesser included offense of assault and battery on a protected person; both convictions permissible without violating double jeopardy.
Commonwealth v. Marrero (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-064-14)
Defendant cannot collaterally attack validity of abuse prevention order in subsequent criminal prosecution. Prior inconsistent statements properly admitted to impeach credible witness despite claimed memory loss.
Commonwealth v. Powell (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-095-14)
Defendant arrested for larceny at 1:30 p.m., interrogated about murder at 11:45 p.m. Statements suppressed under Rosario rule barring admission of prearraignment statements made more than six hours after arrest.
Kiely v. Teradyne, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-063-14)
Retaliation verdict upheld but punitive damages vacated; attorney's fees denied where plaintiff recovered no relief.
Cahaly, et al. v. Benistar Property Exchange Trust Company, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-062-14)
Work product doctrine does not protect factual information from discovery when facts are central to parties' claims and contradict asserted defense.
Aldrich, petitioner (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-094-14)
Habeas corpus petition denied where alleged transcription error in jury verdict can be remedied through ordinary appellate process.
Commonwealth v. Hourican (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-060-14)
Breathalyzer test results with .022 differential fail to meet regulatory .02 tolerance requirement; regulation ambiguous, suppression warranted.
Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. LeMons, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-061-14)
Court affirmed insurer's summary judgment that assault and battery exclusion barred coverage for tavern's negligent security liability.