Cases scheduled to be heard in January

Listen to this article

Following is a list of the cases scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Judicial Court in January. The summaries of the issues presented in the cases have been prepared by Lawyers Weekly. The SJC, in cooperation with Suffolk University Law School, provides live and archived webcasts of its arguments at www.suffolk.edu/sjc.

MONDAY, JAN. 5

Commonwealth v. Cadet
SJC-13713

The appeal involves a defendant’s motion for forensic testing, filed pursuant to G.L.c. 278A, §3.

Carolyn A. Burbine and Arne Hantson, for the commonwealth
Merritt Schnipper for the defendant-appellant

Commonwealth v. Diaz
SJC-13835

At issue is whether a 123-day period between the seizure of a cellphone incident to an arrest and the date that the police applied for a search warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

David D. McGowan, Alissa Goldhaber and Cailin M. Campbell, for the commonwealth
George Ohlson Jr. for the defendant-appellee

Commonwealth v. Solis
SJC-13823

The justices are soliciting amicus briefs on the following issue: “Where the police lawfully seize a cell phone incident to an arrest, and where there is a lengthy delay (here, 110 days) between the date that the police seize the phone and the date that the police apply for, and receive, a search warrant to search the phone, (1) whether the delay is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and (2) whether, or how, the facts that the Commonwealth will retain possession of the phone until trial because the phone itself may have independent evidentiary value or that the defendant has not asked for the phone to be returned are relevant to the consideration whether the delay is unreasonable and a violation of the defendant’s rights.”

David D. McGowan, Brooke Hartley and Alexandra Simone, for the commonwealth
Patrick H. Simmons and Matthew Spurlock, for the defendant-appellee

Sabatini v. Knouse, et al.
SJC-13781

The issue is whether a claim under G.L.c. 214, §1C, for sexual harassment in the educational context must be brought against the educational institution and not against an individual.

Lisa G. Arrowood, Edward Foye, Sarah Sousa and Shayne Kinsella, for the plaintiff-appellee
Ellen J. Zucker, Neerja Sharma, Nancy Gertner, Beth R. Myers and Kimberly Crowley, for defendant-appellant Kristin A. Knouse
John M. Simon, Kay H. Hodge and Garrett AD Gee, for defendant-appellants Ruth Lehmann and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research

WEDNESDAY, JAN. 7

Commonwealth v. Donovan
SJC-13799

The issues are: (1) whether a defendant is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at a transfer hearing pursuant to G.L.c. 119, §72A, and if so, whether the defendant was deprived of effective assistance in the circumstances of this case; (2) whether, at the G.L.c. 119, §72A, transfer hearing, the defendant was entitled to present evidence that discharge was consistent with the protection of the public, and if so, what evidence he was entitled to present; whether the Juvenile Court judge abused her discretion by denying a continuance to enable the defendant to obtain such evidence, including an expert assessment of his risk of recidivism; and (3) whether a motion for new trial claiming error in a G.L.c. 119, §72A, transfer hearing should be heard by the Juvenile Court judge who conducted the hearing rather than by the trial judge or another judge in the same trial court.

Pamela Alford, Adam C. Lally and Meagen K. Monahan, for the commonwealth
Ruth O’Meara-Costello for the defendant-appellant

Commonwealth v. McGrath
SJC-13813

The appeal involves a challenge to the defendant’s conviction for breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor.

Ellyn H. Lazar for the commonwealth
Bradley Baranowski for the defendant-appellant

Commonwealth v. Chhieng
SJC-13817

At issue is whether the motion judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his 2015 admission to sufficient facts, including whether the plea judge’s immigration warnings during the 2015 plea colloquy were sufficient to comply with G.L.c. 278, §29D; and whether the defendant satisfied his burden to show “more than a hypothetical risk” of the relevant immigration consequence occurring, by showing “either that the Federal government has taken some step toward deporting him or that its express written policy calls for the initiation of deportation proceedings against him.”

Catherine L. Semel and Jennifer D. Cohen, for the commonwealth
Edward Crane for the defendant-appellant

Robinson v. Town of Marshfield, et al.
SJC-13825

The issues are: (1) whether the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding of liability on the plaintiff’s retaliation claim under G.L.c. 151B; (2) whether the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to sustain the jury’s award of $1.1 million in punitive damages on the plaintiff’s retaliation claim under G.L.c. 151B; (3) whether the trial judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, where the parties agree that the jury were erroneously instructed under both the “mixed motive” framework articulated in Wynn & Wynn, P.C. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 431 Mass. 655, 666-670 (2000), as well as the traditional pretext framework, including whether the jury should have been instructed on the mixed motive framework at the request of the employer, even though the evidence of retaliatory animus was circumstantial in nature; and (4) whether it was error to enter summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim.

Anne Glennon, Marisa A. Campagna and Jonathan J. Margolis, for the plaintiff-appellee
Jason W. Crotty for the defendants

Commonwealth v. S.W.
SJC-13785

The issues include whether the trial court erred in revoking the appellant’s release and ordering her detained without bail pending an inpatient competency evaluation pursuant to G. L.c. 123, §15(b).

Jocelyn A. McGrath, James F. Petersen and Boone Alexander, for the commonwealth
Michaela R. Martin Strout and Taylor Tristine, for the defendant-appellant

Commonwealth v. R.D.
SJC-13774

At issue is whether a single justice abused his discretion or committed other error of law when he found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge’s determination that a 20-day inpatient evaluation was the least restrictive means to determine the defendant’s competence as required by Commonwealth v. A.Z., 493 Mass. 427 (2023).

Kenneth E. Steinfield, David D. McGowan and Lauren Bolles, for the commonwealth
Michaela R. Martin Strout and Sabrina Lee, for the defendant-appellant

FRIDAY, JAN. 9

Commonwealth v. Delarosa
SJC-13444

At issue is whether it was error for the trial court not to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

Marina Moriarty and Catherine L. Semel, for the commonwealth
Michelle Menken for the defendant-appellant

Commonwealth v. Dorsey
SJC-13232

The defendant claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to adequately investigate and present significant evidence to support his claim of excessive self-defense and failed to present the additional and substantial defense that, at worst, the defendant was guilty of second-degree murder because he did not act with premeditation.

David L. Sheppard-Brick and Katherine E. McMahon, for the commonwealth
Edward B. Gaffney and Elizabeth Dembitzer, for the defendant-appellant