[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-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",[32,75,87,99,110],{"_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",6082881,"mediaKeyId","2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961","parentId",2936120,"title","Appeals court hears argument in Bernat v. Hetnarski over alimony, retroactivity and use of assets","audioSeconds",2047,"startMs",8824000,"endMs",10871000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961&start=8824&end=10871","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961/thumbnail_8824000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6082881/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-argument-in-Bernat-v-Hetnarski-over-alimony-retroactivity-and-use-of-assets","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082881-37b6200e6490e3e09df599a1cc017978/orig.mp4?Expires=1776294738&Signature=UCOkEt2OBwrp33t8wOEZR96RPmXLvT6SWOFt2d4T5ib7I75xIa-U1e2BfRA0NENjjwg09o~P0m07TQGzFuOI-otOjrQG6E4XgIHehRomdj9StX92aJFDmx6uqRiy0QlSOo9Zmky58XxaDSb9EG8uH4QHw0r0Z1F0J5ra2GSLwLg2b6CApRGTWer6MVBd3Cmt5sKCns7LpLHsAhjL3B9~izAHWHXJJPBOMIuHVeV5O3Ji7N9hH61PVbjzzrhSW3mTquyWpHSbsvkxqptpko55p7r-HNVGHptSMwZbuuRVjZvVj3YE2z7JYf5LLfXATMH8puC21aUJQKgIbPq6fwzFTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-09T21:29:11.89Z","article","The Appeals Court heard argument in Bernat v. Hetnarski (No. 24735) on whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying any alimony (retroactive or prospective) after the payor — a former portfolio manager — realized substantial earnings and investment gains following the divorce.

Why it matters: The case explores how courts should treat post-judgment increases in earned income and investment returns when evaluating requests for modification or retroactive relief under Massachusetts alimony law, balancing need, ability to pay and the equitable division of assets.

Attorney Richard Novich, representing the payee Jackie Bernat, told the court that during the four years after the judgment the payor earned roughly $5,510,000 in earned income and more than $3.5 million in passive investment income, figures Novich said the trial court failed to account for when it denied alimony. Novich argued the trial judge made no adequate factual findings explaining why the payee’s need was not met and why retroactive or limited relief should be denied. He cited appellate precedent that courts should not leave a dependent spouse to meet needs solely from assets awarded in equitable distribution and urged reversal and remand for the judge to make specific findings and apply the Alimony Reform Act in detail.

Attorney John Foskett, for Adam Hetnarski, responded that the trial record showed both parties were unemployed at the time of the divorce and that the payee failed to preserve or timely press some arguments below. He also emphasized that the trial judge properly considered assets and found the payee had significant assets post-divorce; Foskett said the judge acted within discretion and that the payee’s post–divorce spending (including real-estate purchases) undercuts the claim for retroactive relief.

The panel questioned counsel about timing, the reason for delay in seeking modification, whether the payee reasonably relied on the husband’s statements, which assets can be considered part of the need analysis, and how appellate precedent (including Dolan, Tetra, and more recent SJC guidance cited by counsel) should guide review of a judge’s exercise of discretion.

Ending: Both parties completed argument and the panel submitted the case. Any appellate remedial order could range from affirming the zero-alimony ruling to remanding for fuller findings addressing retroactivity, need and whether a portion of the payor’s post-judgment earnings should be apportioned as alimony.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, April 9, 2025, Rubin, Neyman, Tan, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","Counsel debated whether a former spouse is entitled to retroactive or prospective alimony after the payor’s post-divorce earnings rose sharply; arguments covered material change standards, need, ability to pay and reliance on assets awarded in the divorce.","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},6082885,"Appeals court hears challenge to level-2 classification for non-contact offenses in Doe v. Offender Registry Board",1936,6878000,8814000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961&start=6878&end=8814","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961/thumbnail_6878000.jpg","/articles/6082885/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-level-2-classification-for-non-contact-offenses-in-Doe-v-Offender-Registry-Board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082885-cd8d1c23c1ed570602e84a63dcd5c0be/orig.mp4?Expires=1776294738&Signature=cbWMMPbDySMb2wqwx1-2xxn-ablu8pyIPymoPAyoJ7tHAhgm5WEUJYtAgpCi8E9aH3mhUaOiPI946ETyfrdVFTbgD3iXIoR8cVeQelH4FQSXYgCssTVMIFIaqO0WwIZ-Lc6SRwS0E8jtLnndSJlQ1IoLkzAdOdE3X5pyrochfAZluTk9Ytnp7SG3IAS8Y2HmgZy4KiTt9CVOVirNKxMZV8LfpGN9~TJEXxd57SvYOScuY89Iv-Yvukw89XMCqO8n~9Gj2SPdmBCN~eSXF8YCGv0B4gGjdeTLH4EDsjl2BZKRnXzj~Z34ISqQYr9NjRa4l-6NqJeSd39ti0Uqv1BZug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","An impounded appeal (John Doe v. Offender Registry Board, No. 24307) drew extended argument about whether the board’s placement of a registrant at risk level 2 was supported when the underlying offenses were non-contact (indecent exposure and open-and-gross lewdness). The board and its counsel defended the classification; counsel for Doe argued the board’s decision was arbitrary, contradictory and unsupported by the evidence.

Why it matters: The decision governs whether non-contact sexual-offense histories can trigger public Internet dissemination and other registry measures reserved for higher-risk findings; the classification carries consequences for notification and public disclosure.

Attorney Edward Gauthier argued for Doe that the board relied on insufficient evidence and improperly excluded scientific studies and expert testimony showing that non-contact offenders without other risk factors have a low probability (the defense cited a 5–10% figure in a cited article) of escalating to contact offenses. He said the hearing examiner did not make the required explicit finding about the likelihood of placing a victim in reasonable apprehension of a contact offense and that the board improperly applied a \"high-risk\" regulatory factor tied to an adult offender with a child victim.

The board’s counsel, Roxanne Greenaway, replied that the hearing examiner applied numerous statutory and regulatory factors (the decision cited factor 3 statutory high-risk adult-with-child, factor 7, factor 22, factor 21, factor 13, and mitigation factor 28) and that the record showed multiple stranger victims, public locations including libraries and stores, repeat visits to the same locations and an escalation in conduct from exposure to explicit ************. The board argued those facts supported a moderate risk and moderate degree-of-danger finding and justified Internet dissemination for public safety.

The panel questioned whether the singular legal standard announced in earlier precedent (Doe 496501) requires an explicit showing that a non-contact offender is likely to place victims in reasonable apprehension of a contact offense, or whether a factor-driven analysis can reach the same result. The defense pressed that the board thwarted efforts to introduce research and expert evidence, while the board said it could apply the enumerated factors without outside scientific testimony.

Ending: The court heard full argument and submitted the matter. Its ruling will affect how hearing examiners and the registry apply regulatory factors when underlying conduct is non-contact but occurs repeatedly in public places and near children.

","An impounded appeal questioned whether a series of non-contact indecent-exposure and open-and-gross-lewdness offenses supported a level-2 classification and internet dissemination under the state registry framework.",{"_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},6082888,"Appeals court addresses alleged motion-of-limine violation and record-check testimony in Commonwealth v. Roman",843,3596000,4439000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961&start=3596&end=4439","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961/thumbnail_3596000.jpg","/articles/6082888/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-addresses-alleged-motion-of-limine-violation-and-record-check-testimony-in-Commonwealth-v-Roman","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082888-620d5de80bfe9c2e89a244bb142fe5ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1776294738&Signature=VKM6ZrlfyT1bIKJI8wwpJITHQUz1T8oCF0oMD1gSsUVEQsDe1i8ndY36lLp9Mdhnn5M7LF7Z5f088RSg-ox2~hk6FqNkt9e4Wla1DtFu9mRIqaDm5UsXm7p9sfr6vxPKebLtCqZi9VztrESxzPIEZub6UOArPQy3qHdfPS6daM0cu~4oExG~uAPDME7NQoIf5JrL1g1G9g7XH8mpM2huD6TgnhtVpeinni971kGOOBhZFgKq7uNbyjCF~47vmlJ8bqDn-LCESGRWtfrZOQxoKSimY7xO1ly6Zq0QZzl2HOgME~7EY4GsTLRbZnGPcx1NScVt-T69OIfN29qsWmNH0A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Roman (No. 24440) over two issues that arose at trial: (1) whether the prosecutor’s opening statement — which, defense counsel said, referenced surveillance, an arrest on a warrant, and other background — violated a pretrial motion in limine and warranted a mistrial, and (2) whether testimony by a DCJIS employee that a record search produced no license to carry was properly admitted without certification or a witness from the Firearm Records Bureau.

Why it matters: The questions affect acceptable scope of prosecutorial openings and the foundation required to prove absence of a public record (here, license-to-carry status) under confrontation and hearsay principles.

Attorney James Methe, arguing for the defendant, said the prosecutor’s opening statements improperly told jurors the police had been \"conducting surveillance\" of the defendant’s house and that the defendant \"was arrested for a warrant,\" facts the defense contends violated the court’s motion in limine restricting testimony about why police were in the area. Methe argued the prosecutor's wording created an early and prejudicial impression of criminality that a stipulation read the next day could not cure.

Methe also challenged the Commonwealth’s use of a DCJIS employee who testified he ran a name-and-dob search and found no license-to-carry record. Defense counsel argued that the witness lacked foundation about how records are created and maintained and that a custodian or a Firearm Records Bureau official should have provided certified records instead of oral testimony.

Assistant Attorney Anne Kennedy for the Commonwealth answered that the witnessing employee conducted the search, was familiar with how the records were created, maintained and accessed, and was subject to cross-examination, so the testimony did not violate the confrontation clause. Kennedy said the prosecutor’s opening was not a deliberate violation and that the judge took immediate steps — instructing counsel and later asking the parties to craft a stipulation read to the jury — to obviate any prejudice.

The panel questioned both sides on whether the day-later stipulation was adequate, whether the opening phraseology could reasonably have misled jurors into inferring prior criminality, and whether the DCJIS testimony met foundational requirements for the absence-of-record exception. Counsel also asked the court whether to hold the matter for a then-pending SJC decision in a related case (Conwell v. Smith) addressing similar issues; the Commonwealth said Smith was argued March 3 and likely to be dispositive.

Ending: The case was submitted after argument; the court will decide whether the opening statement and record-check testimony were properly handled under the trial judge’s remedial steps and existing precedent.

","Oral argument focused on whether statements in the prosecutor’s opening went beyond a pretrial motion in limine and whether a DCJIS employee could properly testify about the absence of a license to carry.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":91,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6082889,"Appeals court weighs whether trial counsel erred by not requesting an accident instruction in Commonwealth v. Blackney",1728,1868000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961&start=1868&end=3596","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961/thumbnail_1868000.jpg","/articles/6082889/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-weighs-whether-trial-counsel-erred-by-not-requesting-an-accident-instruction-in-Commonwealth-v-Blackney","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082889-881b57271d78bbc08df1b4bc67aa2a59/orig.mp4?Expires=1776294738&Signature=m5XZIRO0mVNen1ag8AU-Jk3MnDzIhzJUg3o8~ooWttVVwVMmss3gdhyazqmGO~oeVV15bWU2N1BK30FOYFwJvzWArMW4m8zrcIlIPHskxALTSYcnzjazhW4TlzES-olMAxDG7stDpSmuLSgFLsQfsNyuSmWUSGawMBadLQizJ61hm8c8sdnOj2UiED-UjpIbvv-9kw93CoRGNHOokH1taEZ-dIN3I1t5si3PKlNiFklABJ6aIwOXbrY7e0OsfjxymAdC26kl7qjNXKPcLCNsqSTJ3TtMtCKzwQF5Df3wDTUhMGfchSzJdRcZM7Gj8LB8qEFvrFtA3zB7ctMJM8Zo2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Blackney (No. 24646) over two principal issues: (1) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request an accident instruction after the defendant testified the injury resulted from an accident, and (2) whether references in hospital records that the victim was \"pushed\" or \"kicked\" were admissible or should have been redacted under the statutory medical-records rule.

Why it matters: The court’s resolution could affect how trial courts evaluate defensive instructions (accident vs. assault-and-battery) and how hospital-record statements that touch on causation and liability are handled at trial.

Attorney Edward Gauthier, representing the defendant, argued that the evidence plainly supported an accident instruction under Commonwealth v. Jewett and that trial counsel’s decision not to request the instruction — despite telling the court before trial he intended to do so — created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. He said the model accident instruction more clearly highlights the burden on the Commonwealth to prove lack of accident beyond a reasonable doubt and that omission of that instruction prejudiced the defense.

During questioning the panel debated whether the defendant’s testimony amounted to an accidental touching (which the assault-and-battery instruction addresses) or no touching at all. A justice observed that the record could be read as the defendant saying he did not touch the victim and that some justices questioned whether the standard assault-and-battery elements sufficiently covered the defensive theory.

On the medical-records issue, Gauthier argued that phrases such as \"pushed off a porch\" appearing in treatment notes should be redacted unless directly pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. He cited Commonwealth v. Dubay and other precedents and pressed the court to require the Commonwealth to show by at least a preponderance that the contested phrases were relevant to medical diagnosis or treatment.

Attorney Stacy Gauthier (for the Commonwealth) responded that the failure to file a new-trial motion below and the judge's charge conference made the record insufficient to prove prejudice. She argued that the assault-and-battery instruction covers the accidental-touching issue and that the medical records that referenced being \"pushed\" were admissible because they bore on the cause of injury and were cumulative to the victim’s testimony; she also noted the jury acquitted on the related \"kick\" count.

The panel asked about the precise content of the trial record — how the defendant described the contact, whether the charge and model instructions adequately conveyed the burden regarding accident, and whether the hospital notes materially added to the Commonwealth’s case. Counsel finished and both sides submitted the case for decision.

Ending: The panel took the case under submission. Its ruling will guide appellate standards on when an accident instruction is required and how strictly hospital-record statements should be screened for reference to liability.

","At oral argument, attorneys disputed whether a defendant was entitled to an \"accident\" instruction at trial and whether medical records mentioning the word \"pushed\" should have been redacted under the medical-records privilege statute.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6082890,"Appeals court hears challenge to gunshot-residue, DNA and docket entries in Commonwealth v. Aheart",1694,148000,1842000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961&start=148&end=1842","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2936120-f5a9363b1da0686f74797129aed25961/thumbnail_148000.jpg","/articles/6082890/Massachusetts/Appeals-court-hears-challenge-to-gunshot-residue-DNA-and-docket-entries-in-Commonwealth-v-Aheart","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6082890-781b269bf7c56baf60266f6f8694eebc/orig.mp4?Expires=1776294738&Signature=OfI~CNt5IfNdE0Aepa6FfbyLTvy1sItCTvJRhLI~SyBHHBfF~a9Qitvp8ya7eLOSs~Fe6tCXW7nkxG2h7qjDp9yYNnkTBVhl4loZYQ3u4ECN3uyK6Zt6fWvQnYbi2sSH~7~BPxWboGmSujeMclcmIfsUqu20IJpVQyksw5K7awmCn0ePnUiy7QXfLHd0lAhaR87yf2DXgipGmXfJ3-0OGPG4P~pEO75-DHuLkSq0EtbOYQgx3rbTZLMtcbpXvK0oflTHNMVbEK1Ufp-pyRIoYbB-AvuTCFsR1HseXCQRBcORPK0W7wQM88ZL4ggPayGTTWAu69YM5Wxelq2jOh8s2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in Commonwealth v. Aheart (No. 24734) on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to exclude or limit gunshot-residue (GSR) evidence and related expert testimony, whether other forensic evidence was properly admitted, and whether irregularities in the court docket and minimus records require reconstruction of the record.

Why it matters: The case raises contested questions about how forensic evidence such as GSR and nonblood DNA should be presented to juries, the permissible scope of expert testimony, and when clerical or docket irregularities can justify relief in post-conviction proceedings.

Attorney Michael Warrias, representing Aheart, argued that GSR testimony presented to the jury was legally and factually flawed and that the trial judge abused her discretion by admitting it. Warrias told the panel the Commonwealth’s expert, \"Mister Biello testified that the presence of GSR on sample stubs from a taken from a sweatshirt, would say the person either fired a weapon, they were in close proximity to a weapon being fired, or they had just handled a weapon that had been fired.\" He said the third scenario — transference from handling — introduces uncertainty that makes the GSR result nonprobative without further foundation or limiting instruction.

Warrias also emphasized testimony and affidavits from a defense expert that, he said, showed direct transference could have occurred when officers recovered a sweatshirt that was found wrapped around a firearm. \"In this case, the police arrive at the scene ... they open it up and wrapped inside it is a firearm. Now, here, it's impossible to separate that contamination,\" he told the court.

The attorney further argued trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking funds to have a qualified forensic examiner examine a black cylindrical object seized from the vehicle; Detective Lyons testified it might be a firearm accoutrement but, Warrias said, that was speculative testimony that should have been excluded.

The court also spent time on recordkeeping issues. Warrias pointed to apparent irregularities in the docket and minimus: entries with different signatures and dates that appear five years after the events described. He said the record reconstruction required by court rule 8 did not occur and that questioning relevant court personnel might have resolved doubts.

For the Commonwealth, attorney A.D.H.G. Lee defended the rulings below. Lee acknowledged the expert had testified that transfer was possible but argued the presence of nonblood DNA as the defendant's major contributor on the gun's trigger and other facts — injuries, proximity, and spent casings at the scene — supported the jury's conclusion. Lee said the record and multiple filings support the conclusion that there was no improper docket alteration affecting the conviction.

Throughout the argument the judges questioned the parties closely about the scope of GSR inference, what testing and swabbing had been done, whether the trigger and other firearm parts were tested for DNA, and the provenance of various docket entries and minimus signatures.

The case was submitted for decision at the close of argument.

Ending: The court took the case under submission after both sides finished oral argument; any relief would depend on the panel’s review of whether the GSR testimony and documentary irregularities undermined the fairness of the conviction or required a new hearing.

","Attorneys argued at the Massachusetts Appeals Court over whether gunshot-residue (GSR) evidence, DNA on a gun trigger and irregular docket/minimus entries warrant relief in post-conviction proceedings for defendant Aheart.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears argument in Bernat v. Hetnarski over alimony, retroactivity and use of assets

Appeals court hears challenge to level-2 classification for non-contact offenses in Doe v. Offender Registry Board

Appeals court addresses alleged motion-of-limine violation and record-check testimony in Commonwealth v. Roman

Appeals court weighs whether trial counsel erred by not requesting an accident instruction in Commonwealth v. Blackney

Appeals court hears challenge to gunshot-residue, DNA and docket entries in Commonwealth v. Aheart