concluded error in Massachusetts

2025The court concluded that the privilege secured by art. 21 "is not so much the privilege of the house, as an organized body, as of each individual member composing it, who is entitled to this privilege, even against the declared will of the house." Id. at 27 .

2025The court drew this conclusion from the principle that the privilege was "derive[d] from the will of the people, expressed in the [C]onstitution, which is paramount to the will of either or both branches of the [L]egislature." Id.

2025This was the entirety of her claim, and the treatment within the seven-year period was not alleged to be separate acts of negligence . . . ." Id. at 747 .[6] Here, the judge concluded that for purposes of the repose period, the only "definitely established event" of negligence was the abnormal EKG in 2006.

2025The Court next returned to the clause in Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979), a defamation suit brought against a senator based on statements he included in press releases, a television interview, and newsletters to constituents concerning a research director and professor in Michigan.

2024Although the felony-murder rule was constitutional, Brown, 477 Mass. at 807 , a majority of the court concluded that the doctrine was of "questionable" historical provenance, that developments in our joint venture and constructive malice jurisprudence had undermined the common-law pillars of the doctrine, and that the doctrine "erode[d] 'the relation between criminal liability and moral culpability,'"18 id. at 826-833 (Gants, C.J., concurring), quoting Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492 , 503 n.12, 507 (1982).

2024Id.

2023The Court concluded that the instruction violated the defendant's due process rights, because it "created an unconstitutional burden-shifting presumption with respect to the element of intent." Id. at 318 .

2023In light of the changes made by the Legislature, the court concluded that the test in Doe "serves to frustrate rather than further the Legislature's purpose by imposing too high a burden of proof on the defendant." Id. at 308 .

2018See Vizcarrondo , 427 Mass. at 397-398 ; Azar , 435 Mass. at 687 -690 .

2018Based on that approach, the court concluded that the doctrine of present execution applied and proceeded to reach the merits. 10 A year after Maxwell was decided, the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in Marcus v. Newton , 462 Mass. 148 , 967 N.E.2d 140 (2012).

2018Based on that approach, the court concluded that the doctrine of present execution applied and proceeded to reach the merits. 10 A year after Maxwell was decided, the Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in Marcus v. Newton , 462 Mass. 148 , 967 N.E.2d 140 (2012).

2015See Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 421-422 (2011); Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249, 264-266 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 813 (2011).

2015See Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 421-422 (2011); Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249, 264-266 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 813 (2011).

2015See Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 421-422 (2011); Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249, 264-266 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 813 (2011).

2015See Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 421-422 (2011); Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249, 264-266 , cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 813 (2011).

2014In Commonwealth v. Lavoie, 464 Mass. 83, 88-89 , cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2356 (2012), this court concluded that defense counsel by his or her actions can waive the right to a public trial during jury empanelment without the defendant’s express consent, effectively overruling Commonwealth v. Alebord, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 432 (2011).

2014In Commonwealth v. Lavoie, 464 Mass. 83, 88-89 , cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2356 (2012), this court concluded that defense counsel by his or her actions can waive the right to a public trial during jury empanelment without the defendant’s express consent, effectively overruling Commonwealth v. Alebord, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 432 (2011).

2014In Commonwealth v. Lavoie, 464 Mass. 83, 88-89 , cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2356 (2012), this court concluded that defense counsel by his or her actions can waive the right to a public trial during jury empanelment without the defendant’s express consent, effectively overruling Commonwealth v. Alebord, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 432 (2011).

2013Id. at 218 .

2011In short, the court concluded that no waiver of the right to an attorney need be shown due to “the petitioner’s apparent absolute abandonment of participation in any remaining termination of parental rights or care and protection proceedings.” Id. at 1003 .

2003Although the court concluded that this error was harmless in the circumstances in that case, it described the opinion testimony as “unnecessary and impermissibly intru[sive] on the jury’s vital fact finding function.” Ibid.

2003Id. at 523-524 .

1995The court concluded that the exception for “damage by fire or unavoidable casualty” “includes fires resulting from negligence of the lessee,” id. at 457 , with the result that the lessors were held not to have a meritorious contract claim.