Com v. Shangkuan

Commonwealth v. Shangkuan

78 Mass. App. Ct. 827 (2011)

February 28, 2011

Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Restraining Order, Return of Service, Hearsay, Public Records Exception, Confrontation Clause, Testimonial, Melendez-Diaz

            The Appeals Court addressed whether the Commonwealth could prove that the defendant was served with a G.L. c. 209A restraining order by the return of service filled out by an out of state law enforcement officer without direct testimonial evidence that the defendant was in fact the person served.  The court held that a c. 209A completed return of service is admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule and that it is nontestimonial, thereby avoiding the requirements of the Confrontation Clause.

Black v. Com.

February 25, 2011

Siva Black v. Commonwealth
2011 Mass. LEXIS 32

Docket No. 10840

Supreme Judicial Court

Practice, Criminal, Competency to Stand Trial.

Siva Black, who appeared pro se, appealed from a judgment of a single justice that denied his petition for relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3. Black was charged with armed assault with intent to murder and various other offenses. The judgment, which included a finding that Black was incompetent to stand trial and that he should be committed to Bridgewater State Hospital for evaluation, was affirmed.

Com. v. Taskey

Feb. 18, 2011

Commonwealth v. Keith Taskey
2011 Mass. App. LEXIS 252
Docket No. 09-P-689
Appeals Court of Massachusetts

DNA, Conspiracy, Criminal, Hearsay, Confronting Witnesses.

The defendant appealed from a conviction of conspiracy to tamper with a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) record in violation of G.L. c. 274, § 7. He claimed that the testimony given by a DNA analyst violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment; that insufficient evidence was available for both his indictment by the grand jury and his conviction; and that the judge's refusal to give an accident instruction to the jury was erroneous. The conviction was affirmed.

Southern Union Company v. Department of Public Utilities

Feb. 11, 2011
Southern Union Company v. Department of Public Utilities
Docket No. SJC-10683
Supreme Judicial Court

Gas Company, Department of Public Utilities, Rate Setting, Contracts.

Southern Union Company, doing business as New England Gas Company (company) appeals from an order of the Department of Public Utilities (department) that denied their request to recover an earnings sharing adjustment under a rate settlement agreement that was made with the Attorney General and the Low-Income Energy Affordability Network. The SJC determined that the settlement agreement let the company recover the earnings sharing adjustment. As such, this was reversed and remanded to a single justice with instructions.

Suominen v. Goodman Industrial Equities Management Group

Feb. 11, 2011
Henry C. Suominen, Jr. v. Goodman Industrial Equities Management Group, LLC, & Others
Docket No. 09-P-1896.
Massachusetts Appellate Court

Labor, Contract, Joint and Several Obligation, Failure to Pay Wages.

The plaintiff was employed as the construction manager of defendant’s real estate development firm (GIE). He was fired in 2004 and filed an action against defendant and its principal, Steven E. Goodman. He alleged that Goodman broke a promise to pay plaintiff compensation in addition to his salary. The jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor on some of his claims and the trial judge awarded him $1,729,243.01 in regard to his promissory estoppel claim. On appeal the defendants argued that the trial judge should not have allowed the promissory estoppel claim to go to the jury and also that his instructions were in error. Goodman also said there was not a basis to hold him personally liable. On cross-appeal the plaintiff said that the trial judge erred in granting a directed verdict as to one of his claims and that the defendants’ appeal was not timely. The verdict was affirmed in part and vacated in part. The trial judge correctly ruled on the directed verdict but a material omission in the jury instructions entitled the defendants to a new trial.

Com. v. Robinson

February 11, 2011

Commonwealth v. Kevin Robinson
78 Mass. App. Ct. 714 (2011)
Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Homicide, Arrest, Criminal, Motion to Suppress, Waiver, Constitutional Rights, Jury.

The defendant was found guilty of two counts of murder in the second degree, one count of arson of a dwelling, and one count of causing injury to a firefighter. These stem from a fire that destroyed an apartment building in Cambridge, which killed two of the building’s inhabitants. On appeal the defendant claimed that many aspects of the trial, including the trial judge’s instructions, were erroneous. The conviction was affirmed.

Com v. Heang

February 15, 2011

Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang 
458 Mass. 827 (2011)

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Homicide, Firearms, Evidence, Criminal, Jury and Jurors. 

The defendant appealed from a conviction of murder in the first degree and felony murder. He claimed that he should be granted a new trial because the trial judge improperly admitted into evidence expert forensic ballistics testimony identifying a particular gun as the weapon used in the shootings, expert testimony regarding gunshot residue testing, statements made by the defendant to police requesting legal counsel and denying commission of the crime, two statements by a codefendant, and a videotape of security footage from a store. He also objects to the judge’s voir dire of prospective jurors, challenges the judge’s decision on how to handle a letter from a juror sent after the conclusion of trial, and contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury verdict and that the judge’s denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty was improper. The conviction was affirmed.