Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of unlawful sexual contact. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment with all but fifteen months suspended and eight years of probation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by rejecting Defendant’s request for a specific unanimity instruction and that the State made improper statements in its closing argument that, even in the absence of an objection, warranted a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding (1) the omission of the specific unanimity instruction was prejudicial to Defendant; and (2) the State made improper comments to the jury during closing argument. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Hanscom" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of six counts of gross sexual assault and six counts of unlawful sexual contact. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of inculpatory statements he made during a police interview. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that the totality of the circumstances rendered Defendant’s incriminating statements involuntary as a matter of law, and therefore, the suppression court erred when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence of those incriminating statements. Remanded for a new trial. View "Maine v. Hunt" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating under the influence. Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained during his detention and arrest, arguing that the detention was not supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct justifying the officer’s detention of Defendant. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge of operating under the influence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of wrongdoing to warrant the detention of Defendant. View "State v. Gerry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated trafficking of scheduled drugs. Defendant appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of drugs that the arresting officer found on and near Defendant when he was arrested. Specifically, Defendant contended that the police lacked probable cause for his warrantless arrest because, inter alia, the stop for Defendant’s failure to use a turn signal was pretextual and the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s stop and arrest were lawful, and therefore, the superior court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Lagasse" on Justia Law

NDC Communications, LLC and Kenneth Carle III engaged in a complex set of agreements in the context of the development of a piece of land. When the parties’ working relationship broke down, NDC filed a complaint asserting that it was owed funds from Carle, and Carle counterclaimed seeking contract remedies and other relief. The trial court ultimately entered judgment enforcing a mechanic’s lien against Carle in the amount of $336,681.24. Carle appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court failed to provide him a credit due of approximately $25,000, rendering the judgment against him inaccurate. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) Carle’s due process rights were not violated by the post-trial procedures employed by the court; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s judgment, including its determination of damages. View "NDC Communications, LLC v. Carle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of gross sexual assault, four counts of impersonating a public servant, and two counts of engaging a prostitute. The convictions were based on Defendant’s pretending to be a police officer in order to induce three of four women who were engaged in prostitution to have sex with him as he demanded. Defendant appealed, arguing that the indictment and jury verdict form did not adequately distinguish among separate allegations involving each victim, in violation of his due process rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the constitutional issues that Defendant now asserts were waived. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to the Class B charge of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. Defendant appealed, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made during an interrogation. Specifically, Defendant argued that his statements made during the custodial interrogation must be suppressed because law enforcement did not specifically advise him that he had the right to the presence of counsel during questioning. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Defendant was adequately advised of his constitutional right to counsel and that he effectively waived the privilege against self-incrimination, rendering his statements admissible against him at trial. View "State v. Figueroa" on Justia Law

Defendants, two cousins, were convicted of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs. Defendants appealed, challenging the trial court’s denial of their motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search and during police questioning. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court did not err in concluding that the warrantless search was valid because neither of the defendants affirmatively denied the officer consent to conduct the search; and (2) the court did not err in concluding that one of the defendant’s statements made while he was in custody but before he was informed of his Miranda rights was admissible under the public safety exception to Miranda. View "State v. Carton" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his son. At the commencement of the termination hearing, Father told the court that he was unwell and that he wanted to reschedule the hearing. The court allowed Father to leave and told him the hearing would be rescheduled if Father filed a doctor’s note. Father never filed a doctor’s note and no rehearing was scheduled. The court subsequently terminated Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court did not violate Father’s right to due process when it conducted the termination hearing in Father’s absence. View "In re Adden B." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and arson. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder. During the proceedings, the trial court excluded GPS data and handwritten notes from the State’s case-in-chief due to hearsay problems or discovery violations. The court, however, stated that it would revisit its ruling regarding the admissibility of the evidence should it be necessary for impeachment purposes. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings violated his right to a fair trial by preventing him from presenting evidence contrary to the facts indicated in the excluded evidence. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the court’s rulings excluding the evidence at issue from use in the State’s case-in-chief were not an abuse of discretion and did not violate Defendant’s constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial. View "State v. Poulin" on Justia Law