Massachusetts Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

In the case of Commonwealth v. Gentle, decided on August 25, 2011 by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the SJC addressed two important issues for Massachusetts criminal lawyers. First, the Court reversed the defendants' drug conviction because the Commonwealth failed to present live testimony under the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts. Second, an more importantly, the SJC suggested that it would not follow the United States Supreme Court decision of Kentucky v. King if presented with the issue under Article 14 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

On the confrontation issue, the Commonwealth argued that because the defendant fled during the trial, the Court should hold that the defendant should not get the benefit of recent case law that would not have been available had the defendant not fled during trial. The SJC rejected this argument and held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the United States Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.

The SJC next addressed the police created exigent circumstances rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849 (2011). The SJC held that because the defendant did not raise a claim under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, that the motion was properly denied based on the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal constitution. However, the SJC strongly suggested that the Court may not follow this rule under the Massachusetts Constitution.

This is significant decision for a Massachusetts criminal attorney. The decision emphasizes the importance of basing motions to suppress on Article 14 as the Massachusetts court will not always follow the narrow interpretation of the Fourth Amendment adopted by the United States Supreme Court.