[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6357511,"mediaKeyId","2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef","parentId",2214551,"title","Appeals court upholds summary‑judgment grant? Parties dispute whether overpass is attached to Charles River Reservation","audioSeconds",1079,"startMs",8293000,"endMs",9372000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef&start=8293&end=9372","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef/thumbnail_8293000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357511/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-upholds-summaryjudgment-grant-Parties-dispute-whether-overpass-is-attached-to-Charles-River-Reservation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357511-6a03ed3f1f74fcd81781a910defbbfbc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197310&Signature=E9IxFWhx7SZL3BS-4BbO1ypO7rPp-uR9hs~7rRmKGd6Z3lpcR6zyJZvpwBXhhPSJrhqgbu~u9oL0Opj~CxUaoffICU6vkT-ap1LYw5Q6Hu2Cx07Uc5AaPYctAxs6zNVD7Mpq8ne2Q5wEf2Pq1xTtX2caD76BQhSpUDtm3Se1mg3TCjh4A563B67Nt79G3woygAzn8guwu-ScTpSt7XVrDL7pB4u940P5WEhvffw9NKqYwX8GcIdPfCgD5cnFP4INx9ZVIpisPW2X8sBQj9Zoe7iCKQotAy53a0D2ILzbBOjtImDi~xTe7TsDnmKSUrku1XrMENnu9qYphqtofLQljQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-03T17:25:28Z","article","In Kobler v. Commonwealth (23p1276) the court considered whether the recreational‑use statute bars a negligence claim after a plaintiff was injured descending the Gleeson Overpass, which connects Soldier’s Field Road to the Charles River Reservation. Plaintiff’s counsel Michael Toposky argued the overpass “dumps out onto a sidewalk” that is part of the roadway, not the recreational area, and that the Commonwealth had not produced deed or plot evidence tying the sidewalk at the overpass landing to reservation property.

Toposky told the panel that the only documentary support the Commonwealth produced was an affidavit stating the landing is “physically attached” to the reservation; he said that affidavit was conclusory and that the Google images and photographs in the record were at most sufficient to create a triable issue about attachment. He explained that longstanding authority treats sidewalks as part of the public street and that the Commonwealth’s summary‑judgment record failed to show the overpass was attached to reservation land as the statute requires.

Michael Schiposch, arguing for the Commonwealth, said the Department of Conservation and Recreation owns and maintains the overpass and the north‑side landing and that DCR’s order of taking and maintenance records were in the summary‑judgment record. He told the panel the recreational‑use statute covers “land and structures attached to it,” and he cited prior decisions treating walkways, stairways and bleachers as attached structures covered by the statute. Schiposch emphasized the record evidence that DCR owns the relevant land and said the plaintiff offered only a limited fence photograph that did not contradict the agency’s ownership evidence.

The panel questioned whether at‑grade crosswalks or other at‑grade sidewalks would be treated differently and pressed both sides on whether a fence line visible in the photographs could be treated as a property demarcation. The court submitted the case for decision after argument.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, February 3, 2025, Massing, Hershfang, Tan, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","In Kobler v. Commonwealth the plaintiff says the Gleeson overpass dumps onto a public sidewalk and is not part of the Charles River Reservation; the Commonwealth argues the overpass and land at its landing are reservation property covered by the recreational‑use immunity statute.","taxTitle","Judicial - Appeals Court Oral Arguments, Judicial, Massachusetts","taxId",66294,"location","Massachusetts","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6357516,"Self‑represented claimant tells appeals court he left State Street due to health and alleged harassment; agency urges denial of benefits",1177,6449000,7626000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef&start=6449&end=7626","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef/thumbnail_6449000.jpg","/articles/6357516/Massachusetts/Selfrepresented-claimant-tells-appeals-court-he-left-State-Street-due-to-health-and-alleged-harassment-agency-urges-denial-of-benefits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357516-7339e99f5055d38a4458b8bfe4684eb6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197310&Signature=SRGXXpz-n2HDDlhiHhl-XMaijvLReZSGjJs2jwvgEmFdf6L61ssKycNeuIzaKur3TnLdPZQNGiTKIcoWGe5yBBrBc9m-kmdDgrq3g7cEWazawBgittvBjixXW-bx5A2h2fBZ9m4Xi1uhxygQu~UDd7ocS-IZz2qoMGnF2SiIFIQst6bTrKhICfqXs3-0RGnZoxM4pkYpOGCh9RrmHgZtNl6Pmvetbrd3f0aECZOLoSPf7lVze7dKydsnW92FaH7snCUWuHTeBjjR23rpUnHQx8Ki301puMdJndj7GgnzOUU5EgvFpV~h-Sp90cU2YLr9s2uJwwtjOF0srHPSwVYxSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in an unemployment‑benefits appeal brought by Adam Mosherid (captioned Moocherite/Carter in the transcript, 24p364), who represented himself. Mosherid told the panel he learned of negative performance reviews only during an HR portal check in March 2022, experienced stress and palpitations, and resigned because he believed his health was at risk and that Human Resources could not be trusted based on prior experience.

Mosherid testified he had a documented history of heart problems and that after a March 15 meeting with his manager, Jesse Singh, he experienced anxiety and a three‑month course of therapy. He argued he need not take further steps to preserve employment under G.L. c. 151A, §25(e) because he alleged “repeated and pervasive discrimination” and unreasonable harassment that made further efforts futile.

Catherine Fahey, appearing for the Department of Unemployment Assistance, told the court the review examiner credited some dysfunction but reasonably concluded Mosherid had not shown involuntariness or urgent, necessitous reasons for leaving. The agency emphasized the claimant previously had taken a medical leave and that the record did not show contemporaneous reports of racial discrimination to HR or specific evidence that efforts to preserve employment would have been futile.

The panel questioned whether the review examiner needed to make explicit findings about discrimination and whether factual disputes about whether a second employee was designated manager required remand. The court received supplemental appendices and invited any further written submissions before taking the appeal under advisement.","In a DUA appeal, the claimant said negative performance reviews and stress triggered a medical crisis and resignation; the Department argued the review examiner reasonably found he did not take steps to preserve employment and did not prove discriminatory conduct warranted benefits.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6357521,"Appeals court hears dispute over whether contractor’s unpaid work supports larceny-by-stealing conviction",923,3610000,4533000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef&start=3610&end=4533","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef/thumbnail_3610000.jpg","/articles/6357521/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-dispute-over-whether-contractors-unpaid-work-supports-larceny-by-stealing-conviction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357521-462565577e727c07855aa40c3f0bcf17/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197310&Signature=Vya14XtDTh9JrdywkOOFS3lDZkjoOMyyd~L4dA7H6GF~RIozfeMVVInvpHSHJ-ywSE03G2V2A3Zea6be20Tt-5Pqtkt1vz~lWdMoHGAct-TXpxp~ee7Cv9NXQwJIucODFy03Dc-NWxcbWRKiFa0Jv33cLR2hkH0OxcsF50HwwPWA6-dug3HTUB9gxJvqz9JDxR0FmLhsmpUX5tqSMHPPZVAMBJEAoq3WSyI9ztSd3XMFE3BDclCgoymHl5jmtEbfSJFYwFC2T2Obn9dFeBAUPhBGQBMGKcCvkvB8t4P07k4lkMRq~bDcLDpD00masvg-FQHQPgXgu3WEV69YDH0dkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Allen (24p359), a criminal appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for a larceny‑by‑stealing conviction. Defense counsel Esther Horwich argued the evidence showed the defendant, Kelly Allen, received checks in connection with agreed work and performed substantial work for weeks afterward. She told the court larceny by stealing requires a trespassory or wrongful taking at the time of the taking and that the record lacked evidence of criminal intent coincident with each transfer of a check.

Horwich said the jury was permitted to convict on a single‑scheme theory without evidence that the defendant had a felonious intent at the time each check was delivered. She emphasized that much work was completed — cabinets, bathrooms, an island and appliances installed — and that the defendant even left tools at the site, arguing those facts undercut an inference of intent to steal at the moment of the transfers.

Alexander Jones, for the Commonwealth, replied that the evidence permitted a rational jury to infer a single scheme and an intent to permanently deprive the owner, citing Commonwealth v. Rubin and other analogues where consensual transfers gave rise to larceny convictions when subsequent conduct demonstrated intent. Jones described testimony that work remained incomplete, that the defendant represented to the victim at Home Depot that he owed her money and then failed to pay, and that the victim attempted civil process before filing a criminal complaint months later.

The panel questioned how model instructions and precedents apply when intent is proved after the initial transfer and whether the factual record supported a conviction only on a larceny‑by‑stealing theory rather than false pretenses. Counsel also debated whether a prosecutor’s remark in closing improperly commented on the defendant’s failure to testify; the trial judge told the jury he had not perceived an impermissible comment and gave a full instruction on defendant’s rights.

Argument was submitted to the court.","In Commonwealth v. Allen, defense argued a conviction for larceny by stealing was unsupported because the defendant accepted checks and performed weeks of work; the Commonwealth said the record supports an inference of intent to permanently deprive across a single scheme of transactions.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6357526,"Appeals court weighs whether police approach and short chase amounted to a seizure in Palmer case",1138,2050000,3188000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef&start=2050&end=3188","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef/thumbnail_2050000.jpg","/articles/6357526/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-weighs-whether-police-approach-and-short-chase-amounted-to-a-seizure-in-Palmer-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357526-a2d050391dc036a67f28ab1a42d599b9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197310&Signature=UuoOY3iI5L72zuPZgm8ugpUoayTxEHt~ylnBqsz7aSsLCNUS4TxWq5l60olDA7q5AyKNDnVoqdKleJ0uR07LnTMJjFs7OOlguZ9ab6KHAA3YGDm0gP089uJ8cBdyIT-CkLYHzsa16Guh-Lhum-DiLA8uU9Gg6xj8~LXtwBPQ22SNg8xWdaf7EsjJys9purEyzO300R1CIU78EKg4MDvfpNe04z0IvDwpgOfiPUdHTXBq20rBbkO4CoXDAmj4fAPrM5FsJ0sjtfU3ZwBjgmeehVAFBj-H4MWfvZhtgeGuRF2y3A1pW-9cnNni93aicwkQeUBFPbXQtoV6zW0zRVlVSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Palmer (24p365) over whether Boston police seized Byron Palmer when officers approached him 12 days after a robbery. Defense counsel Trey Collins urged the panel that the eyewitness description relied on by police was “so vague…meaningless” and that the officers’ conduct — six officers converging on a group and a police wagon nearby — created a coercive encounter under Mendenhall and related precedent.

Collins said the officers approached displaying badges and that multiple officers moving toward the group prompted people, including Palmer, to run. He argued officers objectively communicated an intent to compel Palmer’s compliance, so the initial approach was a seizure or, minimally, the chase that followed converted the encounter into one. Collins stressed that charges ultimately proved were unrelated to the robbery and arose from drugs Palmer discarded while fleeing.

Assistant Attorney Henry Drembis (supervised by Ian MacLean) for the Commonwealth responded that officers did not command Palmer to stop and pointed to testimony that the officers simply called out and did not make repeated attempts to detain him. Drembis told the panel “they never commanded him to stop,” and argued any seizure occurred only after Palmer discarded drugs and officers had reasonable suspicion to pursue and detain him.

The panel pressed both sides on case distinctions about following versus chasing, the duration and abruptness of the pursuit, and whether Graham/Warren‑type flight analysis should limit reliance on flight as evidence of guilt. The court heard argument on whether the suppression‑hearing record established a seizure as a matter of law or created disputed facts suitable for trial.","In Commonwealth v. Palmer the panel questioned when an officer approach or brief chase becomes a Fourth Amendment seizure, with defense counsel arguing six officers and a police wagon made the encounter coercive and Commonwealth counsel arguing officers did not command the defendant to stop.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6357531,"Appeals court hears argument that judge erred by not giving lesser-included assault instruction in fatal shooting case",1274,397000,1671000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef&start=397&end=1671","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2214551-4df02a6bf9b26086b224cc70500862ef/thumbnail_397000.jpg","/articles/6357531/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-argument-that-judge-erred-by-not-giving-lesser-included-assault-instruction-in-fatal-shooting-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357531-481275b1a70ed75e923e1682d4651c87/orig.mp4?Expires=1771197310&Signature=RnuB9yiliBMRoPJy31MuMPvASQkFiYNe5KRcvFipwIra64VA0SsqZSaaPWqfF1wCIB4u5~WKYrJ3i1GWgza56sP0GpWfF5kbGRfYNINOPqY29OYw7rBWfsjGvBnzWmjWfW8iqKcTD6XXmHGCpAGBPkCw8-ipjSJsBl7HOET7GqUnvDFVF39dg43WXcN5~III4nWr8Kfp9R8xuICtrP~JVN3j7ddosmaxvwsdZjetGgTaIqeclhYVAx4oJCKXw16mGJK0X9JhKCr7z9jnztfky3EdEHkFsjPxg-Jx6r1NiRFNul~P9gUDyCIaqb4aniYE~9sjFg1WZca3~-mBJ3mMMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Justice Greg Massing and a three-justice panel heard argument in Kamala v. Rivera (23p1023) on whether the trial judge should have instructed the jury on assault and battery as a lesser-included offense to murder. Attorney Robert Shekhanov, representing Jose Rivera, told the court he “wants to address only the failure to give the lesser included offense instruction for assault and battery.” He said trial counsel preserved the objection at the end of the charge and that the record contains statements by the trial judge suggesting he would consider the instruction but ultimately did not give it.

Shekhanov argued the evidence supported Rivera’s theory that he intended only to “beat up” the victim and that some witnesses who testified about a gun had motives to lie or produced the claim late in debriefings. He told the panel the evidence for a gun was “from the cousin who had a motive to lie” and from a cooperating witness who testified about an unproduced text message.

Assistant Attorney Katherine Jansen, for the Commonwealth, countered that Rivera was charged and tried as a joint venturer in a murder and that the jury could fairly infer the requisite malice from the record. Jansen argued that even if the defendant intended only a beating, the act of a co‑venturer using a gun when the victim ran and fell supports a murder conviction under joint‑venture principles. She pointed the panel to the video and medical examiner testimony showing two gunshot wounds, including to the back of the head, and said the victim’s back was toward the group when shots were fired.

The panel questioned how jurors would weigh the cooperating witnesses’ testimony and pressed both sides about whether the record showed prejudice from the missing lesser instruction. The Commonwealth noted a jury question during deliberations indicating the panel was unanimous on second‑degree murder but not first degree, which the prosecutor said suggested the jurors found malice but were split on premeditation.

The justices took the arguments under advisement at the end of the session.","In Kamala v. Rivera, defense and prosecution disputed whether evidence supported a lesser-included assault-and-battery instruction after a jury convicted on murder; justices pressed both sides on witness credibility, joint venture law and prejudice from the omitted instruction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court upholds summary‑judgment grant? Parties dispute whether overpass is attached to Charles River Reservation

Self‑represented claimant tells appeals court he left State Street due to health and alleged harassment; agency urges denial of benefits

Appeals court hears dispute over whether contractor’s unpaid work supports larceny-by-stealing conviction

Appeals court weighs whether police approach and short chase amounted to a seizure in Palmer case

Appeals court hears argument that judge erred by not giving lesser-included assault instruction in fatal shooting case