[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6218504,"mediaKeyId","3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289","parentId",3627833,"title","Appeals Court Hears Dispute Over Whether Electrical Subcontractor Must Perform Excavation and Concrete Work Under Chapter 149 §44F","audioSeconds",2026,"startMs",3544000,"endMs",5570000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289&start=3544&end=5570","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289/thumbnail_3544000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6218504/Massachusetts/Appeals-Court-Hears-Dispute-Over-Whether-Electrical-Subcontractor-Must-Perform-Excavation-and-Concrete-Work-Under-Chapter-149-44F","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218504-5a6b493940b98921d2a9c94829dcc936/orig.mp4?Expires=1775400433&Signature=BxF-9kfLgm20x3yRDAsY4U85jw98-KjlKeDaO-~JQ6eBydsvBCEJhYgeiIKXo1-vCSsVPYWXvcsLaoBgbMg2IVI70euSnZkogOEqYmVyWqWFxm867n-aGIdQoiPhE5J0cTCM0ji6AfGButq5pd1P0Hf7qS3kq6TDIFfuhsvAthBGfVqrjG2JiBZJ2D4tpHdo8ukemeD2lK9rdLeRIs6XSrmaSUtg2Hs83h90XLv4zFn6bEWioa4DU7LF8Up25F5x-d5JUp0L7q5i3g~TubOv5qFats5SyQc8n4CJmroHzuTelnvpSsKVSl2lzorN9pC5ESiKbFqtRkPBAJhf12dcgw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-03T15:09:05Z","article","The Massachusetts Appeals Court, sitting in Boston before Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justices Peter Sachs and Andrew D'Angelo, heard argument in AMP Electrical Inc. v. WM Schultz Construction Inc. and another, docket number 24P941. The core issue is whether an electrical filed subbidder may be required to perform excavation and concrete work (the parties discussed figures in the tens of thousands of dollars) shown on electrical drawings and added by addenda shortly before bidding.

Appellant AMP Electrical, through counsel Bartheem Skirk, argued that the public‑bidding statute (chapter 149, section 44(f)) contemplates separate specification sections for each trade and that substantial excavation or concrete fabrication is not customary electrical work and therefore should be part of the general contractor’s scope. Skirk told the court that the addenda and a revised drawing (E401) were not specifications for the electrical trade and that the awarding authority’s engineers never made a reasoned determination that excavation of that magnitude was customary for an electrical filed subbidder.

John McNamara, representing appellee WM Schultz Construction, and Christopher Petrini, for the Town of West Springfield (third‑party), countered that the addenda process is the standard mechanism to allocate work and that addendum number 3 revised electrical drawing E401 before bid submission to show the concrete‑encased duct bank and trenching as electrical work. McNamara said the addenda were published to all prospective bidders and that question number 15 (a pre‑bid inquiry) and addenda responses put prospective electrical bidders on notice.

Arguments focused on statutory text and industry practice: which documents comprise the contract (specifications, plans and addenda), whether an electrical drawing can contain specifications that obligate a filed subbidder, and how to draw the line between incidental trenching (customary) and large excavation/concrete work (arguably not customary). Counsel disputed the practical consequences of the court adopting either party’s rule; appellees said upholding the addenda notice process preserves fair, uniform bidding, while appellant warned that requiring subs to absorb substantial non‑customary scopes shortchanges the filed‑sub framework in §44(f).

The trial court’s summary judgment decision was a focal point; the lower court granted summary judgment for Schultz and the town argued (and counsel for Schultz re‑urged) that the addenda and the published E401 revisions resolved the matter. The parties also debated whether the subcontractor could or would sub‑contract the disputed items and whether the awarding authority had the obligation to make a reasoned, on‑the‑record determination about what work was customary to a given trade.

The panel heard questions about the timing of the addenda (one issued roughly three days before bid) and statutory thresholds that trigger separate specification sections (the transcript cites a $25,000 estimate threshold in §44(f) for listing a class of work). Counsel noted that some figures discussed in argument exceeded $80,000, raising disputes about whether the work should have been listed in an electrical subsection of the specifications.

The court took the matter under advisement at the close of argument.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Oral Arguments, June 3, 2025, Blake, C.J., Sacks, D'Angelo, JJ., presiding","oneSentenceSummary","The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument in AMP Electrical Inc. v. WM Schultz Construction, docket number 24P941, over whether excavation and concrete duct‑bank work shown on revised electrical drawings became part of the electrical filed subbid under chapter 149 §44(f).","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},6218509,"Appeals Court Weighs Admission of Out‑of‑State 'Other Acts' Evidence and Indictment Amendment in Christopher Eaton Appeal",1639,1873000,3512000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289&start=1873&end=3512","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289/thumbnail_1873000.jpg","/articles/6218509/Massachusetts/Appeals-Court-Weighs-Admission-of-OutofState-Other-Acts-Evidence-and-Indictment-Amendment-in-Christopher-Eaton-Appeal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218509-660928031d5cdfeef3e70dadde99359a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775400433&Signature=K6fkVRBzAxkahEYfn3c-VA-V~Xk6jAGDpuN43NiKJhwIx1jZKwLRKdM9L0Sfu2shFfYeHXRGMjP2blAjpjdpYJTL4RnA4iPO1Hr4EQYRHUbKmTVO3mUXFxUGyKjg6cJPU3cJjJZznywrqBOOdjhatjpIp-h59CE36k38tzdBJRRVfilROr-9FQ1iY8JaJulz7k2DjDoR0zZYi0sjkroKtB1r1d84~QKvjWaD3o3nEL8BNvAo8mDbitpnHmi0pTHKtSFW9gG3EoeTyYoPTvCgZpPPicEFaU~QGcUmjckkhCF1erNRnPMGVUAcaxSQY7Wuk42imA7P3NK~FkyBvkr59A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Massachusetts Appeals Court panel of Chief Justice Amy Blake, Justice Peter Sachs and Justice Andrew D'Angelo heard argument in Commonwealth v. Christopher Eaton, docket number 24P779, a partially impounded appeal that centers on (1) admission of other‑act (prior bad‑act) evidence, including out‑of‑state conduct, and (2) whether an amendment to the indictment during trial prejudiced the defense.

Scott Gleason, representing Christopher Eaton, asked the panel to reverse or remand on the ground that testimony about incidents in Connecticut—including what defense described as “spooning” involving an adult and a child—was highly prejudicial and that the trial court’s rulings permitted cascades of inference unfavorable to the defendant. Gleason argued portions of the out‑of‑state evidence had not been preserved and said the timing and scope of an amendment to replace alleged dates in the indictment (April → May/June) impaired the defense’s ability to investigate and present exculpatory evidence.

Catherine Jansen, for the Commonwealth, defended the trial court’s rulings. She told the panel the Connecticut evidence was preserved for appeal and was admissible to show the nature of the relationship and the alleged grooming. Jansen argued the record shows disclosure of the Connecticut material, that the trial judge limited or directed the jury to avoid speculation, and that the amendment to the indictment did not prejudice the defendant because the judge instructed jurors not to infer missing records existed and the defense had opportunities to cross‑examine.

A recurring factual thread in argument concerned a trip to a resort (referred to in the transcript as “Cocoa Key/Cocoa Cay”), where the defense said investigators had not found reservations or records for certain weekends. The panel discussed whether the trial judge’s jury instruction — a passage taken from the record in which the judge said jurors must accept that no corroborative records were presented for Cocoa Key in May and June and thus “for purposes of determining whether the Commonwealth has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, they do not exist” — effectively remedied any prejudice from a late amendment.

The justices probed preservation of objections to multiple categories of other‑act evidence, whether the Connecticut evidence was necessary for the Commonwealth to present a coherent narrative, and whether the trial judge exercised appropriate discretion under the applicable evidence rules. Both counsel acknowledged the difficulty of these cases for parties and jurors; the panel asked several specific questions about what records were sought pretrial, motions in limine, a bill of particulars, and the dates and scope of the amended counts.

At the close of argument the panel took the matter under advisement; no decision was announced.","Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justices Peter Sachs and Andrew D'Angelo heard argument in Commonwealth v. Christopher Eaton, docket number 24P779, about the admission of other‑act evidence from Connecticut and whether a trial‑stage amendment to the indictment prejudiced the defense.",{"_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},6218514,"Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Sufficiency of Evidence in William R. Wheeler Case",1752,107000,1859000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289&start=107&end=1859","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3627833-1d1f752cdcaa914ced739dabb1613289/thumbnail_107000.jpg","/articles/6218514/Massachusetts/Appeals-Court-Hears-Challenge-to-Sufficiency-of-Evidence-in-William-R-Wheeler-Case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6218514-9bfe5092732897ba7d6862f4d353b13a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775400433&Signature=VtcJkkYZXiNcFRsP-6BA2z1Dvh8rfZZdV3i-LbtKIYo7x52hvCDdhIvxr8nmyqPSFSF89d19IdsMBw0WqTRx830qwcum6a~2K~ug~0ly8wJ0peUvf2~QuTLa7jxIhm1qPKaun--iUN9xxrF8lKXLyr~8iaXRaXwucbjgjTFNE24PIxu7a7sElNJsInCBN3-7TOIWqz3zqR9VHM3u~27i0Rvtxx3koAfjN5zShxLoc4rYs68FMU6c-JE7vd0nT-2OEDpPMK5qomgi~XDED5jjckAVLs4Ct1R7gblApTpols2ni99qymo51j5erH21BZHW-Pf9tHbA8FGDLDsixw3Euw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justices Peter Sachs and Andrew D'Angelo heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. William R. Wheeler, docket number 24P549, in a session of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Boston.

The defense, represented by Mr. DeMaria, asked the panel to reverse convictions for operating under the influence and negligent operation, arguing that “the prosecution cannot meet its burden of proof” because there was no in‑court identification of the driver and no direct evidence tying Mr. Wheeler to driving at the moment of the crash.

The issue of identification was central to the argument. Mr. DeMaria told the court there was “no in court identification” and that the complaining witness’s statement that “it was a man” was insufficient without probing her angle of view or securing a direct in‑court ID. The defense emphasized that other people were at the scene, including a roommate, and that the Commonwealth’s trial presentation lacked direct corroboration tying Wheeler to the driver’s seat at the time of impact.

Elizabeth Simonian, appearing for the Commonwealth, urged the court to affirm the convictions, saying the Commonwealth produced “ample circumstantial evidence” including two admissions by the defendant (one at the scene and one at booking), testimony that the defendant was the only person standing next to the vehicle when officers arrived, the vehicle’s registration to the defendant, and failed or problematic field sobriety tests. Simonian also told the panel that the booking video contains a statement that the defendant drank shortly before leaving the location in question.

The panel questioned both sides about preservation of specific sufficiency objections, the relevance and effect of an absence of in‑court identification, and whether testimony that the defendant drove back to the scene sufficed to prove operation. The justices repeatedly framed the review as one that must view the trial evidence “in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth” while also testing whether the Commonwealth’s circumstantial proof could legitimately support each element charged.

Defense counsel also challenged the impairment evidence, noting the lapse of hours between drinking and the incident alleged and pointing to the booking video and the lack of physical corroboration (e.g., keys, seat‑height consistency). The Commonwealth responded that the totality of evidence — crash severity, admissions, officer observations and sobriety testing — provided a legally sufficient basis for the jury’s findings.

The panel did not announce a decision at argument. Chief Justice Amy Blake closed the argument and said the “case is under advisement.”","Chief Justice Amy Blake and Justices Peter Sachs and Andrew D'Angelo heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. William R. Wheeler, docket number 24P549, in a session of the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Boston.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals Court Hears Dispute Over Whether Electrical Subcontractor Must Perform Excavation and Concrete Work Under Chapter 149 §44F

Appeals Court Weighs Admission of Out‑of‑State 'Other Acts' Evidence and Indictment Amendment in Christopher Eaton Appeal

Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Sufficiency of Evidence in William R. Wheeler Case