463 Mass. 520
Facts:
The defendant was convicted of deliberate premeditated
murder after stabbing a man . The defendant appealed claiming: 1) the jury
instructions did not specify whether the evidence of voluntary intoxication could
be considered when deciding the defendants ability to premeditate, 2) the jury
instructions did not specify that jury could find a verdict for voluntary
manslaughter if the evidence of reasonable mutual combat or provocation was
found, and 3) the motion for a new trial was wrongfully denied because of a
closure of the court room during jury selection that violated his 6th
Amendment rights. Finally, the defendant asked for his sentence to be reduced
to that for murder in the second degree.
Holding/Rationale:
The trial court found that no jury instructions on voluntary
intoxication was warranted. Only if there had been evidence of debilitating
intoxication would a voluntary intoxication instruction have been required. Witnesses who observed the defendant at the
time of the stabbing described him as having no difficulty walking, running,
speaking, or understanding. The trial court also found there was no evidence of
voluntary manslaughter by provocation or mutual combat that would justify a
jury instruction. There was no evidence that the victim did or said anything
prior to the incident that would cause a reasonable person to lose control. Furthermore,
the trial court found no credible evidence that anyone was denied from viewing
the jury selection. The defendant did not sustain his burden to prove that the
public was excluded from his trial. The appeals court upheld all decisions made
at the trial level and found no justification for a reduction in sentencing or
a reversal.
Judgment:
Affirmed.
Written 7/17/2013
