[{"_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",6352084,"mediaKeyId","2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a","parentId",2225776,"title","Appeals court splits on scope of community-caretaking and emergency-aid exceptions in backpack search","audioSeconds",1120,"startMs",3331000,"endMs",4451000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a&start=3331&end=4451","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a/thumbnail_3331000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6352084/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-splits-on-scope-of-community-caretaking-and-emergency-aid-exceptions-in-backpack-search","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6352084-472974b30ca2f0d179ec4c5ec61fbe37/orig.mp4?Expires=1775585866&Signature=OyVkdtVJs9NBBC~H3fHF~FdUn1mXNhDV8r7kFY-ofm~SUg12XRHPR4Y~lw-vPrHh1tDBPmveAsL02~6RxZH4KT6KASgZGVX61hpLWv0NFC7A9zvZ0iT6mtvbhlCW2i21k9FiK05FY7hxnuD~88XZ9KP4G3F0DdHJdQGPwzONR7vWPCmLrunCJK6s5rLh8FVCoziM6BA63PBbH-LJUHWj-wMqUyL838QxHY4cHt0uvDnwawKwEJrynswvzG2YrH9m6iR8MSnCbgrzWXdTKdU3Tw0mmhdy7tsgoNI7P-aDN6ek8P32t7s8orClLpQ2NEtQcgouqfauKRky42J95aZ9Gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-05T17:41:31Z","article","The panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Justin Page, docket number 24P298, over whether officers lawfully searched a defendant’s backpack during a response to what they perceived as a possible overdose.

Defense position

Edward Crane, counsel for Justin Page, urged the court to limit the community-caretaking exception and to resolve the case under the narrower emergency-aid doctrine. Crane argued the Supreme Court’s recent Coniglia decision narrowed community-caretaking principles and that, in any event, Massachusetts precedent confines warrantless searches of personal belongings.

Commonwealth position

Assistant District Attorney Bethany Lynch told the panel the plea in the case was conditional on the suppression ruling and said the judge had credited officer testimony that the defendant repeatedly reached for the backpack while overdosing. Lynch argued officers’ action to secure the backpack and look inside was reasonable to protect the public, the officers and the defendant and to obtain identification and medical information that might help first responders.

What the justices focused on

The justices debated whether the inquiry is objective or whether officers’ subjective motive matters. The panel discussed Commonwealth v. Kapler and McCarthy precedent and asked whether the officer’s stated purpose — checking for a weapon or finding ID and medical information — was sufficiently tied to alleviating the medical emergency. Justices also considered timing: would a search immediately at the scene differ from a search just before placing the person in an ambulance?

Outcome

The court did not announce a ruling at oral argument; the matter was taken under advisement. The panel signaled close attention to whether the record shows officers acted primarily to relieve an emergency and not as a pretext for criminal investigation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, February 5, 2025, Presiding: Blake, C.J., Meade, Englander, JJ.","oneSentenceSummary","The panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Justin Page, docket number 24P298, over whether officers lawfully searched a defendant’s backpack during a response to what they perceived as a possible overdose.","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},6352088,"Panel questions whether repeated check-cashing supports knowledge and intent in forgery appeal",1759,1541000,3300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a&start=1541&end=3300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a/thumbnail_1541000.jpg","/articles/6352088/Massachusetts/Panel-questions-whether-repeated-check-cashing-supports-knowledge-and-intent-in-forgery-appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6352088-710061523bbecf6384a3dd8de34105bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1775585866&Signature=ktL439EgXlCV2nN7Nlv-Xf0PSKiQsveJdaC2F~emUwoeMDhY~Whlp6BkV4x5k1maosaohkUokV3ikBgKZ7hLvxK4nG9WubIdX04WO~pHLxqhThbaS6FTvaHOm-4psbq6JaSXyN0Q1P0geZ1PFy3fC2NJuAerB6FF6BRPQMcv5YFZl2pT7kSG7UadvXxbibmARO862hZLANWTNCDBf4XrcCUHG4eWlO1mn5g5B9TJqdgDqC6M1P6loljejQZgl4JUpw1OMkk046y7znrEXQW32NQnYSdS-FKX3vSMRB-UycaaPFRD9CdEW2WIuYLVly0ABawGGDf230ZRFwN5asLcYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The appellate panel heard argument in Commonwealth v. Michael Pardee, docket number 24P140, about whether the evidence that eight checks were cashed at a check-cashing facility was sufficient to prove knowledge of forgery or intent to defraud.

Why it matters

Judges noted the court’s recent decisions in Oliver and Scordino, which limit convictions when identification and knowledge must be inferred from ordinary business practices. Defense counsel argued that those cases control here because the evidence rests on business practice in the check-cashing facility and multiple inferences rather than direct proof that the appellant cashed the checks knowing they were forged.

Key facts and dispute

The Commonwealth pointed to eight separate check-cashing events in a short period, with several checks listing memo-line purposes (roofing, nursing, painting) and two checks issued after the victim’s death. The Commonwealth urged that the number, timing, amounts and memo-line descriptions together support a jury inference of knowledge and intent.

Defense response

Defense counsel argued the evidence relied on inference upon inference: that someone else could have written the memo lines, that checks circulate, and that identification at the check-cashing facility relied on witness recollection and file photos rather than a teller’s live identification. Counsel urged Oliver and Scordino require closer proof of knowledge than the Commonwealth offered.

Panel questioning and legal frame

Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justice John Englander pressed both sides on whether the record includes direct evidence identifying the person who cashed the checks, and whether the memo lines or the repeated pattern of transactions materially distinguish the case from Oliver and Scordino. The panel also discussed whether the defense raised intent to defraud below or whether that ground was preserved for appeal.

Outcome

The panel took the case under advisement. Justices focused their questioning on two discrete elements—identification of the person who cashed the checks and whether the transaction pattern, memo lines and post-death payments supply sufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge of forgery or intent to defraud to sustain a conviction.","In Commonwealth v. Michael Pardee (24P140) the panel examined whether repeated cashing of eight checks — some after the victim’s death and with memo lines listing services not performed — suffices under recent decisions (Oliver, Scordino) to establish knowledge of forgery or intent to defraud.",{"_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},6352094,"Appeals court weighs whether rent money belonged to tenant or wife in larceny appeal",962,82000,1044000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a&start=82&end=1044","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a/thumbnail_82000.jpg","/articles/6352094/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-weighs-whether-rent-money-belonged-to-tenant-or-wife-in-larceny-appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6352094-0302557ba30ab077601fcaa85dd0a190/orig.mp4?Expires=1775585866&Signature=AuoGlWoDGMkYwG4MAPujm2bbqOr1zU2GFKfZI2IYZsC9f50BC1TqQ3M611wWaod~G-Jwi6xfCDbAD-GOJ~4jiTSZpCPCNlL9-4jnvzfBZyvePFYZC0~At-WfGTDaXnva9L8JcBw1N~9gj4ije9rtOd3it7e0hpYCFyK1Wj5U4eTwFI7l3Ri8r53gfKLmQZsn6G0~3zGiXaqhYH8Jvv9hJgtMBtmcE8ZaXySu2agPJFdh6WafM16u1MDwQTNTPGZE57FQlANE4iZ6mpTTvl2GqxzakiKiOe-O35W8YNlwjoRL4QpABicui3UKjGK~stLbwxuCOBIAfc2JNj-rEKgi6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chief Justice Amy Blake and a three-justice panel heard oral argument Tuesday in Commonwealth v. Reese Collins, docket number 24P548, over whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support a larceny conviction for money taken from a leased apartment.

The dispute focused on two elements: whose money it was and whether the defendant intended permanently to deprive the alleged victim of it. Penelope Kathawala, representing appellant Reese Collins, told the panel that “the Commonwealth has conceded there was insufficient evidence” on the higher charge and argued the record likewise fails to prove ownership for the lesser-included larceny offense.

Why it matters

If ownership of the money is ambiguous — for example, if the funds were contributed toward a jointly owed rent payment — the court said, a larceny conviction may not stand. Kathawala pointed to testimony that a brother gave $500 toward rent, that the money was hidden by the wife in a shared dresser, and that the brother had sometimes handed rent money to either spouse. “The money was given to either Miss Souza or Mr. Collins to pay rent,” she said, arguing that possession and control were not shown to belong solely to Mr. Collins.

What the court pressed

Justice William Mead and Justice John Englander pressed both sides on the standard of review and on whether the jury reasonably could infer intent. Mead asked whether returning the money undercuts an inference of an intent to permanently deprive; the justices cited case law going back decades, including Commonwealth v. O’Connell, saying the law can treat a temporary taking followed by return as larceny in some circumstances.

Commonwealth response

Steven Nadeau, on behalf of the Commonwealth, told the panel that even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth the jury could reasonably find the defendant had taken the money with intent to deprive the owner and that the evidence about where the money was hidden and how the defendant behaved while leaving supported that inference.

Outcome and next steps

The panel did not decide the case at argument; the matter was taken under advisement. The court asked about procedural questions relating to resentencing if the panel were to reverse part of the conviction, and counsel acknowledged possible remand issues. No opinion date was given on the record.","In Commonwealth v. Reese Collins (docket 24P548) the three-justice panel heard competing arguments over whether evidence showed ownership and intent required for larceny; defense counsel stressed joint ownership and return of funds, while the Commonwealth defended jury’s inference of intent to permanently deprive.",{"_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},6352074,"Appeals court hears challenge to DCF’s ‘reasonable efforts’ after out-of-state placements and reduced visits",2000,8902000,10902000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a&start=8902&end=10902","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a/thumbnail_8902000.jpg","/articles/6352074/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-DCFs-reasonable-efforts-after-out-of-state-placements-and-reduced-visits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6352074-ea1b37f76699955b150117eb5ecc569e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775585866&Signature=DlZ1MhimGJ3wz2yOAfad9apz01rHHs-uH0G1sD2SIXoqBC085qX4rkaAlNufvmHEYeCxRX-49swMWl2NfjZzvwVXQNOZ-UB50VUXBPK0zBiNpfYQZRfK3mNTXW5C0TOcAA-y~bNxdeStRy2Sy1ls9K7YQswRb1u1oC2DUQmZ4y3j9etg6a7DDrSeLxCqxX12xl13Vhd5B6iZc6d3oJ4dhY6F9hdJQtr~M0FAxHnCxzvnKlBQoOy6bAfS880hG0wq8ZAnSzriybIp4b3AtcXy5WqZ6dmDtdp5Qx5ROHQyg8ULgoJK3BnN2y4XZti-AEa1EqqtZi9KkJ9QLxtI6IJJ8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The appellate panel heard argument in the Department of Children and Families v. Mother, docket number 24P765 (impounded), about whether the juvenile court erred after finding DCF had failed to make reasonable efforts — and, if so, whether the agency remedied those failures before trial.

Mother’s argument

Molly Odey, representing the mother (appellant), told the court the record shows repeated requests by the mother for family therapy and that DCF did not implement referrals or meaningful out-of-state visitation arrangements for years. Counsel emphasized that the children were moved to New York in mid-2021 without the mother receiving advance notice and that, after the move, DCF reduced visits to a single monthly two-hour session — a schedule the mother said was onerous to arrange and harmful to the relationship.

DCF’s response

Julie Gallup, arguing for the department, said DCF made repeated efforts, including offering in-person home visits and referrals, and that the children exhibited varying and, at times, persistent reluctance to meet with the mother. Gallup stressed the record contains diagnoses and provider reports indicating the older children had symptoms consistent with trauma or PTSD and that the mother did not consistently engage with services, missed appointments or decline to follow up when the department’s efforts stalled.

Children’s position

Lane Goldberg, counsel for the children, urged the court to affirm termination orders, saying the children — after years in care — opposed reunification, reported traumatic experiences while in the custody of their parents, and that mother’s insights and engagement were insufficient to support reunification.

Court focus and remedy discussion

The panel queried the timing and content of the juvenile court’s reasonable-efforts findings, the remedial steps the trial judge ordered in November 2023, and whether a continuance of the adoption/termination hearing would have been the appropriate remedy if DCF’s efforts were deficient. Counsel and justices also discussed the legal weight of older children’s preferences and whether those preferences should be dispositive.

Outcome

The panel took the matter under advisement. The mother asked the court to vacate the termination decrees and remand for further proceedings; DCF and the children’s counsel urged affirmance.","In the Department of Children and Families v. Mother (24P765) the panel considered whether DCF failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve or reunify the family after placing three children in New York, including whether DCF delayed family therapy and reduced mother’s visitation following the move.",{"_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},6352079,"Appeals court hears challenge to unequal ESOP and SARs division and 15‑year alimony calculus",2057,6821000,8878000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a&start=6821&end=8878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2225776-4115d8ec748927acdd7e8c57e586d77a/thumbnail_6821000.jpg","/articles/6352079/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-unequal-ESOP-and-SARs-division-and-15year-alimony-calculus","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6352079-a19cbcac42baff8cdf0c3a0b691236a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775585866&Signature=j7aWqOCIKuiwL~-q0Nil~YrSZRDFKo4~vsz7DWgNdERZcZI6eC933E2SMS3ui~cZnQ3KXzM5xECTX-poxI3s9qsvdRMVNgt4XL7vTFeV6MARtG4TbU1076r4is7YqUqDZsLHGZectcfKIT7NKte1cFToRpHmiWuxBzXyJka68Toqgw2YjeY9slY8cDVITX5BJFNgiMgmfCjvg-91~PJ2TJAwSUy3cuyUEHLln7PlYjABt2VM4aOD~jg1ntJJChdvPa1UKkoUQ50R47QZ00RsGUcvidQ520am7D6lszKAtV3huYoJdH-ECBL33HX5UJz1Eo0IsDpl4-o0w9bwgVyF7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The appeals panel heard argument in Jeanette McCarthy v. Arthur McCarthy, docket 24P425, a divorce and asset-division appeal focusing on the judge’s treatment of employer retirement benefits and the calculation of alimony.

Appellant’s argument

Sandra Lundy, representing the wife, asked the panel to find that the trial judge’s factual finding that \"the parties’ marriage had been broken down for several years prior to separation\" was not supported by the record and that the court’s resulting asymmetric award for ESOP and SARs accounts amounted to an abuse of discretion. Lundy argued the ESOP in question vests at age 65 and that much of the value at issue would vest only if the husband continued working; she urged the panel to correct what she called an excessively unfavorable allocation to the wife.

Appellee’s response

Catherine Giordano, representing the husband, told the panel the judge complied with statutory requirements and exercised permissible discretion. Counsel said the judge used evidence about when compensation and bonuses were earned and sought to produce an equitable, if not equal, division; the judge also limited unusually high outlier years in the income averaging.

Panel concerns and context

The panel explored whether a 15‑year income average (used to estimate marital lifestyle and need for alimony) is an appropriate baseline in a long marriage where income rose over time and included large bonuses. Justices questioned the record support for certain factual findings and asked counsel to point to precedent endorsing the trial judge’s particular staircase-style allocations and the 15‑year averaging approach.

Outcome

The court took the matter under advisement. Justices signaled they were wary of orders that invite ongoing litigation over document exchanges (for self-executing staged payments) and emphasized that appellate review focuses on whether the trial judge abused discretion or made clearly erroneous findings.","In Jeanette McCarthy v. Arthur McCarthy (24P425) the panel reviewed a trial judge’s asymmetrical division of ESOP and SARs retirement assets and a novel 15‑year averaging approach to set alimony; appellant argued key factual findings were clearly erroneous and that the division produced an inequitable result.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court splits on scope of community-caretaking and emergency-aid exceptions in backpack search

Panel questions whether repeated check-cashing supports knowledge and intent in forgery appeal

Appeals court weighs whether rent money belonged to tenant or wife in larceny appeal

Appeals court hears challenge to DCF’s ‘reasonable efforts’ after out-of-state placements and reduced visits

Appeals court hears challenge to unequal ESOP and SARs division and 15‑year alimony calculus