The Massachusetts Appeals Court today threw out a rape conviction because the assistant district attorney in the case went too far in playing on the emotions of jurors.

In a case out of Berkshire County, the court ruled that demanding vindication for the victim and telling the jury that she had been victimized a second time by being forced to retell the events of the night her boyfriend allegedly raped her "were beyond the pale of any acceptable closing advocacy. ... In this case, the aforedescribed vindication-based errors in the closing had the ineluctable effect of 'sweep[ing] the jurors beyond a fair and calm consideration of the evidence.'"

The boyfriend argued the sex was consensual.

Complete ruling.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today rejected a man's claim that a tape of his girlfriend's 911 call used against him in court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his witnesses.

The court said that because the woman was calling during an emergency - she somehow managed to escape the guy after he'd punched her in the face - her conversation with the 911 dispatcher was "not testimonial" and so not subject to Sixth Amendment restrictions.

The ruling came in a case of Joseph Beatrice, a 6'2", 220-lbs. man who got angry that his 4'11", 123-lbs girlfriend came into the bathroom on April 7, 2006, looking for a cigarette while he was using it:

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that a Boston lawyer whose office failed to file a client's bankruptcy petition on time not only has to pay off her debts but refund the fee she originally paid him.

Attorney William Soo Hoo had argued that he deserved to keep Linda Don's $1,000 fee because none of her creditors had actually sued her, which means the result was the same as if his office had done its work correctly and gotten her bankruptcy protection.

The court rejected this argument, noting that just because creditors have yet to sue the client does not mean they never will:

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today the state could force a man twice arrested on drunk-driving charges to install an "ignition interlock device" even though he was convicted before the law allowing the requirement was passed.

Unlike last week's Supreme Judicial Court ruling on a similar issue related to ankle bracelets for convicted sex offenders, the appeals court ruled the interlock devices were part of a "civil" remedy related to the issuance of driver's licenses and for keeping drunks off the road, rather than a "punitive" one that would be covered under the federal and state constitutions' bans on ex post facto punishment, or punishment meted out to somebody after they'd already been sentenced.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today the owners of half of a two-unit condo can't build dormer windows without their neighbors' consent.

The ruling comes in the case of a former duplex in Newton in which the owners of one side wanted to extend their attic with dormer windows and a deck, but the owners of the other side balked. The dormer people sued, seeking arbitration, but the appeals court says state condo laws are very specific: The roof is a "common area" owned jointly by all owners and that if one owner doesn't want to modify it and change the overall size of the area, there's nothing the other owner can do:

... The condominium statute explicitly requires that all owners give consent before their percentage interest in the common areas is affected; all portions of the plaintiffs' proposal that would do so are therefore impermissible without the defendants' consent. ...

Complete ruling:

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that prosecutors could use a gun seized in a Revere motel unit as evidence against the man charged with possessing it.

A district court judge had thrown out the evidence against Jose Lopez, saying the arresting officer had neither a warrant nor proof the woman who let him into the unit had the authority to do so, but a majority on the appeals court ruled he could seize the gun under a "plain view doctrine" because he was in the room for another, legitimate reason.

Why was she letting him in to begin with? And why did he arrest Lopez only reluctantly? It's a story detailed in the court's ruling:

The Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled today that while it is true nobody owns an on-street parking space, the potential loss of such spaces to residents of new developments gives nearby residents standing to sue to block the projects.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals today threw out the criminal-trespassing conviction of a man who'd invited into a Boston Housing Authority building by a tenant.

Gregory Nelson, who'd been barred from the Old Colony project in South Boston following an arrest for possession of a dangerous weapon, was arrested again on April 25, 2007, when two housing cops spotted him in a hallway - right next to a large "No Trespassing" sign.

Testimony showed he was there at the invitation of a friend who lived in the building after a night out. And the court noted that the BHA's own leases and police rules state that while a barred person cannot just enter a BHA building and wander around, "a resident does have the right to invite any individual not barred by a restraining order as a guest."

Complete ruling:

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today upheld the conviction of a woman who argued she could not be charged with larceny for not paying utility bills because utility service is not "property" that can be stolen.