William Meade

The case involved a defendant convicted in 2007 of multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and related offenses stemming from a violent attack on a former dating partner; he received a prison sentence followed by ten years of probation that included mandatory GPS monitoring under G.L. c. 265, § 47. After release, the defendant moved in 2023 to vacate the GPS condition, claiming it constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment and art. 14. The motion judge denied the motion but allowed review after five years, and also denied reconsideration. The Appeals Court affirmed the imposition of GPS monitoring, finding it supported by an individualized balancing of the Commonwealth's interests in public safety and rehabilitation against the defendant's privacy interests, given factors such as the crime's severity, his criminal history, and sex-offender classification. However, the court reversed the order as to the ten-year duration, holding that the judge failed to make specific findings on the incremental liberty intrusion over time or to set a defined monitoring period, and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In Commonwealth v. Justin Page, the defendant faced firearm and drug charges after police seized a pistol, knife, cash, and heroin from his backpack during a response to a reported medical emergency in a supermarket parking lot. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the warrantless search violated constitutional protections, but the motion judge denied it under the community caretaking exception. After entering a conditional guilty plea that preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling, the defendant challenged the denial on appeal. The Appeals Court affirmed, holding that the search was justified because officers acted to check for weapons for public safety and to identify the apparently overdosing defendant, with actions objectively divorced from criminal investigation. The court noted that the officers were off-duty initially responding to a person down in a car and followed department policy for medical emergencies.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether building permits issued in 2011 for a biomass power plant in Springfield had expired after accounting for extensions under the 2010 permit extension act and any litigation tolling periods. The zoning board revoked the permits following a 2020 enforcement request, and the Land Court granted summary judgment upholding the revocation on the ground that the four-year statutory extension ran concurrently with litigation tolling. The Appeals Court reversed, holding that the statutory phrase "in addition to the lawful term of the approval" required the four-year extension to begin only after the end of any litigation tolling period, so that the permits remained in effect. The court based this interpretation on the plain statutory language and the act's purpose of responding to the Great Recession by extending qualifying permits.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Commonwealth v. Michael C. Pardee, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of eight counts of larceny over $1,200 and eight counts of uttering a false check for cashing eight handwritten checks totaling about $34,000 drawn on the account of a deceased woman with dementia, which were not authorized by her power of attorney. The defendant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and erroneous admission of certain testimony regarding check cashing procedures and the firing of a caregiver. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence, including identification from the check cashing facility and the circumstances of the checks, was sufficient to support the verdicts, and that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in admitting the challenged evidence as it was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between the estate of Helen Krumsiek and Collins Electric Company, Inc. (CEC) over the terms of a stock redemption agreement (SRA) requiring CEC to buy back shares upon a shareholder's death, specifically the amount of a "dividend payment in year of death" under the fifth amendment to the SRA. After a jury trial found that CEC breached the agreement by failing to make timely and correct payments totaling over $2 million, the trial judge ruled that the estate could terminate the SRA and retain its shares. On appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the breach of contract judgment and related rulings, remanding for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge abused his discretion by excluding evidence of how CEC handled two prior shareholder redemptions, as that course-of-performance evidence was relevant to determining the parties' intended meaning of the disputed contract clause.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the enforceability of an offer to purchase (OTP) for real estate in Charlestown between buyer Gregory McCarthy and sellers Jacob F. Young, III, and Katherine Anderson Young as trustees. The buyer sought specific performance and damages after the sellers terminated negotiations over an easement for maintenance on an abutting property, despite no purchase and sale agreement being executed. The Land Court had ordered the sellers to convey the property, but the Appeals Court reversed, holding that the OTP was not enforceable because it did not include all material terms and the parties' ongoing negotiations over the easement constituted only an unenforceable agreement to agree.

propertyprocedure