Martin v. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-137-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12288 JAMES MARTIN vs. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT. August 18, 2017. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Attorney at Law, Disqualification. District Attorney. The petitioner, James Martin, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. Martin, an attorney with a practice in the Springfield area, has been indicted by a Hampden County grand jury on charges of rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b), and indecent assault and battery, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13H. He filed a motion to disqualify the Hampden County district attorney’s office from prosecuting the case on the basis that it would constitute a conflict of interest because he has worked closely with that office in resolving cases for a number of years. After a judge in the Superior Court denied the motion, Martin filed his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition in the county court. A single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The case is now before us pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), which requires a showing that “review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment in the trial court or by other available means.” S.J.C. Rule 2:21 (2). Martin has not made, and cannot make, such a showing. Although Martin argues that allowing the Hampden County district attorney’s office to prosecute the case will violate his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial, and that it will be “too late” if the disqualification issue is not addressed prior to his trial, the ruling on the disqualification issue is the very type of ruling that is routinely reviewed on appeal from a conviction. See Luke v. Commonwealth, 460 Mass. 1002, 1002-1003 (2011), citing Commonwealth v. Colon, 408 Mass. 419, 429-432 (1990). There is no reason why that is not also so here. The single justice did not err or abuse his discretion in denying relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. Judgment affirmed. The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law. Alan J. Black for the petitioner. Full-text Opinions
Commonwealth v. Martin (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-084-17)
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-403 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. DEQUAN MARTIN. No. 15-P-403. Suffolk. April 1, 2016. – July 6, 2017. Present: Meade, Wolohojian, & Maldonado, JJ. Marijuana. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress. Threshold Police Inquiry. Probable Cause. Search and Seizure, Threshold police inquiry, Exigent circumstances, Probable cause, Pursuit, Emergency. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Investigatory stop, Probable cause. Complaint received and sworn to in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on April 12, 2012. After transfer to the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department, a pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Michael J. Coyne, J., and the case was heard by Thomas C. Horgan, J. Chase A. Marshall for the defendant. Kathryn Leary, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. MALDONADO, J. In this case, we consider whether the warrantless entry by police into a residence was justified where the entry was made while chasing the defendant, who fled from police during a stop for a civil infraction of marijuana possession. Concluding that these circumstances do not give rise to any exigency that would authorize the police to follow the defendant into a residence, we reverse. Background. On April 11, 2012, at about 8:50 P.M., two undercover Boston police officers, while patrolling the Dorchester section of Boston, approached a legally parked vehicle in which sat three males. The vehicle was “consumed with smoke” and condensation had formed on the rear windshield. The defendant was seated in the front passenger seat. As the officers approached the vehicle, the defendant opened the door and stepped outside. Smoke emanated from the vehicle, and the officers were struck by a “strong” odor of burnt marijuana. One of the officers, Officer Beliveau, who had experience and training in drug related crimes, was approaching the passenger side and ordered the defendant to get back inside the vehicle. The defendant sat back in the front passenger seat but his legs protruded outside the vehicle through the door. Beliveau repeated his command, and the defendant repositioned himself fully into the vehicle. “[I]n the passenger compartment of that door,” Beliveau then observed a small plastic glassine bag, a copper grinder (commonly used to break up marijuana so that it could be more easily rolled into cigarettes), and cigar wrappers. “[G]reen leafy […]
Commonwealth v. Martin (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-183-16)
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-12056 COMMONWEALTH vs. PIERCE A. MARTIN. Norfolk. September 7, 2016. – November 25, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Costs, Fees and costs, Probation. Complaint received and sworn to in the Quincy Division of the District Court Department on October 19, 2010. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea, filed on October 3, 2012, was heard by Mary Hogan Sullivan, J., and motions for the return of seized property, filed on November 21, 2012, and July 22, 2013, were heard by Mark S. Coven, J. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Ilse Nehring for the defendant. Susanne M. O’Neil, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. In October, 2011, the defendant, Pierce A. Martin, pleaded guilty in the Quincy Division of the District Court Department to possession of a class D substance (second offense). At sentencing, the plea judge imposed a one-year term of probation and, as mandated by statute, the probation supervision fees (G. L. c. 276, § 87A) and the victim-witness assessment (G. L. c. 258B, § 8). In October, 2012, after the revelation of misconduct at the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute (Hinton laboratory), a judge granted the defendant’s unopposed motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that Annie Dookhan,[1] the subsequently discredited analyst at the center of the misconduct allegations, performed the analysis of the substances seized during the defendant’s arrest. See Commonwealth v. Scott, 467 Mass. 336 (2014). The Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi on the underlying complaint. Thereafter, the defendant filed a motion for return of property, including probation supervision fees ($ 780) paid during the term of probation and the victim-witness assessment (fifty dollars), claiming a right to recoup these amounts where the conviction, in the defendant’s view, was vacated on constitutional grounds.[2] The judge denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. We transferred the case from the Appeals Court on our own motion. We conclude that there is no statutory authority for the return of the probation supervision fees and the victim-witness assessment paid by the defendant. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the defendant’s motion for return of property. Background. We summarize the relevant facts from the record. On […]
Commonwealth v. Martin (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-030-14)
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 SJC‑10836 COMMONWEALTH vs. CLEVELAND MARTIN. Suffolk. October 11, 2013. ‑ February 26, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide. Felony‑Murder Rule. Robbery. Taxicab. Joint Enterprise. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Search and seizure, Assistance of counsel, Result of illegal interrogation. Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel. Search and Seizure, Expectation of privacy. Evidence, Joint venturer, Admissions and confessions, Cross‑examination, Impeachment of credibility, Prior misconduct, Relevancy and materiality, Result of illegal interrogation. Practice, Criminal, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Motion to suppress, Assistance of counsel, Capital case. Cellular Telephone. Telephone. Witness, Cross‑examination, Impeachment. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 21, 2005. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Margaret R. Hinkle, J., and Elizabeth B. Donovan, J.; the cases were tried before Regina L. Quinlan, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on February 3, 2012, was heard by her. Philip G. Cormier for the defendant. Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. LENK, J. In December, 2008, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, with armed robbery as the predicate felony. The defendant’s convictions stem from the stabbing death of Heureur Previlon, a Brookline taxicab driver, whose body was found inside his vehicle in the early morning hours of August 25, 2005. The defendant and a codefendant, Jashawn Robinson, were indicted as joint venturers. Following the allowance of their motions to sever, they were tried separately and Robinson was acquitted. The matter is before us on the defendant’s direct appeal, which was consolidated with his appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial. The defendant claims that (1) it was error to have denied his pretrial motions to suppress statements made to police on three occasions as well as certain physical evidence gathered as a result of those statements; (2) the judge improperly precluded him from cross-examining Laura Pizarro, the defendant’s former girl friend and a key Commonwealth witness, as to certain false statements she had made accusing a relative of sexual impropriety, which the defendant contends were relevant to show Pizarro’s motive to lie; (3) the […]
Martin v. Simmons Properties, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-012-14)
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 SJC‑11325 CLIFFORD J. MARTIN vs. SIMMONS PROPERTIES, LLC. Suffolk. September 9, 2013. ‑ January 16, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Real Property, Registered land: easement, Easement, Certificate of title, Deed, Drain. Easement. Deed. Way, Private: extent. Drain. Civil action commenced in the Land Court Department on August 3, 2007. The case was heard by Gordon H. Piper, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Clifford J. Martin, pro se. Joseph P. Mingolla for the defendant. Martin J. Newhouse & John Pagliaro, for New England Legal Foundation & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Diane C. Tillotson, for Real Estate Bar for Massachusetts & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. In this case involving registered land, we consider, among other things, the effect of a reduction by the owner of the servient estate in the dimensions of an easement created for the purpose of permitting the easement holder access to a lot which otherwise has no direct access from a public way. We must determine whether the dimensions of such an easement, defined by reference to a Land Court plan, may be modified by the servient land holder so long as the purposes for which the easement was created are not frustrated, and the utility of the easement is not lessened. We conclude that there is no meaningful distinction for purposes of such an analysis between an easement on recorded land and an easement on registered land held pursuant to a Land Court certificate of title. Confirming and expounding upon our adoption of the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.8(3) (2000) (Restatement) in M.P.M Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87 (2004) (M.P.M. Builders), we affirm the decision of the Land Court judge that the width of the easement properly may be reduced as the defendant has done here, since the plaintiff does not dispute that at all times he has been able to use the remaining unobstructed portion of the easement for the purpose of travel to and from his parcel. 1. Background and prior proceedings. We recite the facts based on the detailed findings of the trial judge. For the most part, the facts are undisputed. […]
Martin Richard, 8-Year-Old Killed in Marathon Bombing, Laid to Rest
Martin Richard, the youngest of the victims killed in the Boston Marathon bombings April 15, has been laid to rest. NECN.com reports parents Denise and Bill Richard had a private burial service and funeral for the boy Tuesday morning, and thanked the public for its support. “The outpouring of love and support over the last week has been tremendous. This has been the most difficult week of our lives and we appreciate that our friends and family have given us space to grieve and heal,” the parents said in a statement on NECN.com. The Richard family, from Dorchester, plan to have a public memorial service in the coming weeks, according to the site. South End Patch