abuse of discretion standard in Massachusetts

2019Cf. Canavan's Case , 432 Mass. 304 , 312, 733 N.E.2d 1042 (2000) (in context of expert testimony, "applying an abuse of discretion standard on appellate review will allow trial judges the needed discretion to conduct the inherently fact-intensive and flexible ... analysis").

2019Cf. Canavan's Case , 432 Mass. 304 , 312, 733 N.E.2d 1042 (2000) (in context of expert testimony, "applying an abuse of discretion standard on appellate review will allow trial judges the needed discretion to conduct the inherently fact-intensive and flexible ... analysis").

2011See generally Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 442 Mass. 826, 833 (2004), quoting from Commonwealth v. Boyd, 367 Mass. 169, 182 (1975) (“[T]he question of an expert’s qualifications is for the trial judge, and [that] determination will be reversed only on an abuse of discretion or error as matter of law”).

2010That deference, however, does not remove entirely a judge’s traditional role in deciding whether a witness should be qualified as an expert. “[T]he question of an expert’s qualifications is for the trial judge, and [that] determination will be reversed only on an abuse of discretion or error as matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 442 Mass. 826, 833 (2004), quoting from Commonwealth v. Boyd, 367 Mass. 169, 182 (1975).

2025In reviewing the exclusion of third-party culprit evidence, "[b]ecause the issue is one of constitutional dimension, we are not bound by an abuse of discretion standard, but rather examine the issue independently." Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 807 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60, 66-67 (2004).

2018"Because the issue is one of constitutional dimension, we are not bound by an abuse of discretion standard, but rather examine the issue independently." Conkey , supra at 66-67, 819 N.E.2d 176 .

2025Under the abuse of discretion standard, "the issue is whether the judge's decision resulted from 'a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision . . . such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives.'" Commonwealth v. 4 Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 672 (2015), quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 , 185 n.27 (2014).

2023"Under the abuse of discretion standard, the issue is whether the judge's decision resulted from 'a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors relevant to the decision . . . such that the decision falls outside the range of reasonable alternatives' (quotation and citation omitted)." Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 672 (2015), S.C., 478 Mass. 189 (2017), quoting L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 , 185 n.27 (2014).

2017The “admission of [expert testimony] is largely within the discretion of the trial judge and he [or she] will be reversed only where the admission constitutes an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 410 Mass. 199, 202 (1991).

2016It substitutes generality for specificity and preconceptions for evidence.” “The admission of [expert testimony] is largely within the discretion of the trial judge and he will be reversed only where the admission constitutes an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Commonwealth v. Caraballo, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 536, 539 (2012), quoting from Commonwealth v. Johnson, 410 Mass. 199, 202 (1991). “[A] judge’s discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of discretion where we conclude the judge made ‘a clear error of judgment in weighing’ the factors relevant to the decision, . . . such that the deci

2023"Once a judge has carefully and thoroughly analyzed [the underlying goals of the first complaint doctrine, our established first complaint jurisprudence, and our guidelines for admitting or excluding relevant evidence], and has decided that proposed first complaint evidence is admissible, an appellate court shall 1 Called by the defendant at trial, that relative testified that the victim never disclosed anything about being abused by the defendant. 7 review that determination under an abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60, 73 (2011). a.

2022Here, the judge treated the text messages and the subsequent in-person conversation between the victim and her mother as a single complaint, and admitted both in evidence. [Note 5] We "review [the judge's] determination under an abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60, 73 (2011).

2024"We examine the judge's imposition of equitable remedies under an abuse of discretion standard." Demoulas v. Demoulas, 428 Mass. 555, 589 (1998). 2.

2018"We examine the judge's imposition of equitable remedies under an abuse of discretion standard." Ibid ., quoting from Demoulas v. Demoulas , 428 Mass. 555 , 589 (1998).

2010“The admission of expert testimony is ‘largely within the discretion of the trial judge and will be reversed only where it constitutes an abuse of discretion or error of law.’ ” Adoption of Hugo, 428 Mass. 219, 232 (1998), quoting from Commonwealth v. Pikul, 400 Mass. 550, 553 (1987).

1998The admission of expert testimony is “largely within tiie discretion of the trial judge and will be reversed only where it constitutes an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Commonwealth v. Pikul, 400 Mass. 550, 553 (1987).

2024Although we have previously stated, in passing, that rulings on special motions to dismiss are reviewed for an abuse of discretion or error of law, see Baker, 434 Mass. at 550 ; McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343, 348 (2000), subsequent decisions have effectively engaged in de novo review, at least as to the special motion proponent's threshold burden, see Reichenbach, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 572 ; Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 112-113 (2016) 20We further explained in Fronk v. Fowler, 456 Mass. 317, 329 (2010), that "[t]he proper vantage point for evaluating wheth

2023L. c. 231, § 59H, "for an abuse of discretion or error of law." Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 483 Mass. 200, 203 (2019) (Blanchard II).

2025The exclusion of evidence of a Bowden defense, however, is not an issue of constitutional dimension and "is examined under an abuse of discretion standard." Id. at 804 n.26.

2023Unlike the exclusion of third-party culprit evidence, the exclusion of Bowden evidence "is not constitutional in nature and therefore is examined under an abuse of discretion standard." Silva- Santiago, 453 Mass. at 804 n.26.

2026See Vasquez, supra. Deciding whether the single justice erred or abused her discretion therefore "requires us to determine 'whether the bail judge's decision . . . involved an abuse of discretion or error of law.'" Jones, supra, quoting Vasquez, supra. In reviewing the propriety of an order disposing of a motion to reconsider bail, we may also look to the findings of the judge who initially set bail in the case, where those findings remain relevant and applicable.

2026See Vasquez, supra. Deciding whether the single justice erred or abused her discretion therefore "requires us to determine 'whether the bail judge's decision . . . involved an abuse of discretion or error of law.'" Jones, supra, quoting Vasquez, supra. In reviewing the propriety of an order disposing of a motion to reconsider bail, we may also look to the findings of the judge who initially set bail in the case, where those findings remain relevant and applicable.

2024Although we have previously stated, in passing, that rulings on special motions to dismiss are reviewed for an abuse of discretion or error of law, see Baker, 434 Mass. at 550 ; McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343, 348 (2000), subsequent decisions have effectively engaged in de novo review, at least as to the special motion proponent's threshold burden, see Reichenbach, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 572 ; Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 112-113 (2016) 20We further explained in Fronk v. Fowler, 456 Mass. 317, 329 (2010), that "[t]he proper vantage point for evaluating wheth

2017We address the defendants' alleged conduct under the Duracraft framework, "review[ing] the judge's decision to grant the special motion to dismiss to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion or error of law." McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343, 348 (2000). a.

2025"We examine the judge's imposition of equitable remedies under an abuse of discretion standard." Cavadi v. DeYeso, 458 Mass. 615, 624 (2011).

2024"We examine the judge's imposition of equitable remedies under an abuse of discretion standard." Bonina, 91 Mass. App. Ct. at 625, quoting Cavadi v. DeYeso, 458 Mass. 615, 624 (2011). 5 1.

2026"The amount of damages awarded is a factual issue reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard." Twin Fires Inv., LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 445 Mass. 411, 424 (2005).

2026"The measure of damages is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal . . . but the amount of damages awarded is a factual issue reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard." Twin Fires Inv., LLC v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 445 Mass. 411, 424 (2005).

2025See Spivey v. Neitlich, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 742, 744 (2003) ("We apply the abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the judge was warranted in dismissing the appeal").

2018See Spivey v. Neitlich , 59 Mass. App. Ct. 742 , 744 (2003) ("We apply the abuse of discretion standard to determine whether the judge was warranted in dismissing the appeal").

2024Standard of review. "[W]e review the trial judge's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion or error of law." David v. Kelly, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 443, 447 (2021), quoting Antoniadis v. Basnight, 99 Mass. App. Ct. 172 , 176 (2021).

2023See David v. Kelly, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 443 , 447 & n.7 (2021).

2023"We review a judge's decision whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under the abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth v. Bishop, 461 Mass. 586, 596 (2012), citing Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827, 851-852 (2011).

2022See Commonwealth v. Bishop, 461 Mass. 586, 596 (2012) ("We review a judge's decision whether the probative value of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under the abuse of discretion standard").

2015The Supreme Judicial Court has recently addressed this standard and has announced a new standard of review, in L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 (2014), for whether a judge has abused his or her discretion: In discussing the abuse of discretion standard in [Commonwealth v.] Ronald R., 450 Mass. [262,] 267 [(2007)], the court stated: ‘In order for the juvenile to sustain an abuse of discretion claim, he must demonstrate that “no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken the view expressed by him.” Commonwealth v. Ira I., 439 Mass. 805, 809 (2003), quoting Commonweal

2015The Supreme Judicial Court has recently addressed this standard and has announced a new standard of review, in L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 (2014), for whether a judge has abused his or her discretion: In discussing the abuse of discretion standard in [Commonwealth v.] Ronald R., 450 Mass. [262,] 267 [(2007)], the court stated: ‘In order for the juvenile to sustain an abuse of discretion claim, he must demonstrate that “no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken the view expressed by him.” Commonwealth v. Ira I., 439 Mass. 805, 809 (2003), quoting Commonweal

2015The Supreme Judicial Court has recently addressed this standard and has announced a new standard of review, in L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 (2014), for whether a judge has abused his or her discretion: In discussing the abuse of discretion standard in [Commonwealth v.] Ronald R., 450 Mass. [262,] 267 [(2007)], the court stated: ‘In order for the juvenile to sustain an abuse of discretion claim, he must demonstrate that “no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken the view expressed by him.” Commonwealth v. Ira I., 439 Mass. 805, 809 (2003), quoting Commonweal

2015The Supreme Judicial Court has recently addressed this standard and has announced a new standard of review, in L.L. v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169 (2014), for whether a judge has abused his or her discretion: In discussing the abuse of discretion standard in [Commonwealth v.] Ronald R., 450 Mass. [262,] 267 [(2007)], the court stated: ‘In order for the juvenile to sustain an abuse of discretion claim, he must demonstrate that “no conscientious judge, acting intelligently, could honestly have taken the view expressed by him.” Commonwealth v. Ira I., 439 Mass. 805, 809 (2003), quoting Commonweal

2014In addition, the judge must determine “whether the probative weight of the Bowden evidence exceed[s] the risk of unfair prejudice to the Commonwealth from diverting the jury’s attention to collateral matters.” Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, supra. “If the [evidence] is admitted, the Commonwealth may offer evidence explaining why the police did not follow that line of investigation.” Commonwealth v. Ridge, supra, citing Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, supra at 803 n.25. “[T]he exclusion of evidence of a Bowden defense is not constitutional in nature and therefore is examined under an abuse of

2009While the exclusion of third-party culprit evidence is of constitutional dimension and therefore examined independently, see Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60, 66 (2004), the exclusion of evidence of a Bowden defense is not constitutional in nature and therefore is examined under an abuse of discretion standard, see Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 398 Mass. 615, 629 (1986).

2011See generally Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 442 Mass. 826, 833 (2004), quoting from Commonwealth v. Boyd, 367 Mass. 169, 182 (1975) (“[T]he question of an expert’s qualifications is for the trial judge, and [that] determination will be reversed only on an abuse of discretion or error as matter of law”).

2010That deference, however, does not remove entirely a judge’s traditional role in deciding whether a witness should be qualified as an expert. “[T]he question of an expert’s qualifications is for the trial judge, and [that] determination will be reversed only on an abuse of discretion or error as matter of law.” Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 442 Mass. 826, 833 (2004), quoting from Commonwealth v. Boyd, 367 Mass. 169, 182 (1975).

2024Although we have previously stated, in passing, that rulings on special motions to dismiss are reviewed for an abuse of discretion or error of law, see Baker, 434 Mass. at 550 ; McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343, 348 (2000), subsequent decisions have effectively engaged in de novo review, at least as to the special motion proponent's threshold burden, see Reichenbach, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 572 ; Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 112-113 (2016) 20We further explained in Fronk v. Fowler, 456 Mass. 317, 329 (2010), that "[t]he proper vantage point for evaluating wheth

2023After careful review, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the judge's conclusion that the defendants' petitioning activity, in its entirety, "lacked any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law," Baker v. Parsons, 434 Mass. 543, 553-554 (2001), and that the defendants' special motion to dismiss was properly denied, see Blanchard II, 483 Mass. at 203 (appellate court reviews "ruling for an abuse of discretion or error of law").

2024Although we have previously stated, in passing, that rulings on special motions to dismiss are reviewed for an abuse of discretion or error of law, see Baker, 434 Mass. at 550 ; McLarnon v. Jokisch, 431 Mass. 343, 348 (2000), subsequent decisions have effectively engaged in de novo review, at least as to the special motion proponent's threshold burden, see Reichenbach, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 572 ; Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 89 Mass. App. Ct. 97, 112-113 (2016) 20We further explained in Fronk v. Fowler, 456 Mass. 317, 329 (2010), that "[t]he proper vantage point for evaluating wheth

2023The cases the majority cites for applying an abuse of discretion standard -- in particular, Blanchard v. Steward Carney Hosp., Inc., 477 Mass. 141 (2017) (Blanchard I), S.C., 483 Mass. 200 (2019) (Blanchard II) -- do not require a contrary result.

2025"We review a judge's determination that there was 'manifest necessity' for a mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard." Cruz v. Commonwealth, 461 Mass. 664, 669 (2012).6 See also Commonwealth v. Steward, 396 Mass. 76, 79 (1985) We also review for an abuse of discretion a decision to 6 deny a motion for reconsideration.

2023"A judge's determination that there is a 'manifest necessity' warranting the declaration of a mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth v. Bryan, 476 Mass. 351, 356 (2017), quoting Cruz, supra at 669 .

2017On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred by precluding the defendant's friend, Gabriella Ciambrone, from testifying to Rivera's hearsay statements that the victim was stabbed with his own knife, and that "someone picked up the knife and then he [the victim] got stabbed." 4 Because a third-party culprit defense is an issue "of constitutional dimension, we are not bound by an abuse of discretion standard, but rather examine the issue independently." Commonwealth v. Wood , 469 Mass. 266 , 275 (2014).

2014See Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266, 278 (2014).