Com v. Salinger, 5/27/10

Commonwealth v. Salinger, May 27, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 776

Assistance of counsel, Evidence, School records, Medical record, Rape.

The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury on one count of child rape and five counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under the age of fourteen.  In response the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to introduce certain evidence, and also asserted several additional bases for granting a new trial.  The trial judge did not hear arguments on all the issues in the defendant’s motion for new trial and ruled that due to the ineffectiveness of the defendant’s counsel, a new trial should be awarded.  The Appeals Court vacated the trial court’s grant of a new trial.  However, the court remanded the case back to the trial court to consider remaining unaddressed grounds in the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Com v. Martin, 5/27/10

Commonwealth vs. Jamal Martin, May 27, 2010
457 Mass. 14

Motion to Suppress; Search and Seizure; Possession of Firearm 

The defendant appealed the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence and statements claiming that he was subjected to an unlawful patfrisk violative of the 4^th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America and art.14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.  He also challenged his convictions asserting that the judge erred in admitting ballistics evidence and excluding exculpatory evidence.  The Appeals Court rejected his arguments and affirmed his convictions.  The SJC reversed the Appeals Court by vacating the order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress, ordered that the motion to suppress be granted, and did not consider the defendant’s additional claims.

Com v. Narcisse, 5/27/10

Commonwealth v. Mark Narcisse, May 27, 2010
457 Mass. 1

stop and frisk; search and seizure; patfrisk; field interrogation observation 

The defendant was charged with carrying a firearm without a license and possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card after he was pat frisked by police officers during a consensual encounter. The defendant moved to suppress the firearm, the ammunition, and the statements made to police, claiming that the patfrisk constituted an unlawful stop and seizure by the police under both the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The motion was denied and the defendant was convicted of all charges. The Appeals Court affirmed his convictions. The SJC reversed. The issue is whether the officers possessed the requisite constitutional justification to seize the defendant after initiating a consensual encounter, as well as the necessary justification to frisk him. A constitutional justification for seizure requires a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in criminal activity and that he was armed and dangerous.

Com v. Hubbard, 5/27/10

Commonwealth v. Cory D. Hubbard, May 27, 2010
457 Mass. 24

Plea, Trial by jury, Waiver of trial by jury

In 1998, the defendant pleaded guilty in the District Court to multiple drug offenses. In 2005, the defendant moved to vacate his guilty pleas. The motions to vacate and motions for reconsideration were denied. The Appeals Court reversed and vacated the judgments, concluding that the defendant’s convictions were invalid because he did not sign a written waiver of his right to a jury trial in accordance with G. L. c. 263, § 6, and Mass. R. Crim. P. 19 (a), 378 Mass. 888 (1979). The SJC concluded that a written jury trial  waiver is not required to enter a valid guilty plea, and affirmed the order denying the defendant’s motions to vacate his guilty pleas, as well as the orders denying the defendant’s motions for reconsideration.The defendant brought up two issues. (1) Whether the court can determine the defendant’s guilty plea was ‘knowing and voluntary’ in the absence of a written jury trial waiver. (2) Whether the absence of a written jury trial waiver violates G. L. c. 263, § 6, or rule 19 (a), and provides a basis to invalidate the defendant’s pleas.

Com v. Williams, 5/21/10

Commonwealth v. Dwight Williams, May 21, 2010
456 Mass. 857

Motion to suppress, Disclosure of evidence, Discovery, Sentence, Comment by judge, Capital case. Evidence, Admissions and confessions,Hearsay, Authentication, Consciousness of guilt, Telephone conversation. Witness, Cross-examination. Evidence, Bias, Offer of proof. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of constitutional rights, Privacy. Homicide. Firearms. 

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, assault with a deadly weapon, assault with intent to commit murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm.  The defendant appealed the rulings on his motions to suppress statements, claimed two evidentiary errors, and four procedural errors including sentences beyond the statutory maximums for two of the charges.  The SJC agreed that the charges exceeded the statutory maximums and must be vacated, however the SJC rejected the defendant's other claims, affirmed his conviction, and remanded the case for resentencing.

Com v. McCoy, 5/20/10

Commonwealth v. Ronald McCoy, May 20, 2010
456 Mass. 838

Rape, Kidnapping, Assault and Battery,First complaint, Cumulative evidence. Error, Harmless Practice, Challenge to jurors, Examination of jurors, Voir dire, Harmless error, Lesser included offense, Duplicative convictions.

The defendant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, rape, and assault and battery.  The defendant contended that his convictions should be reversed, arguing that the trial judge improperly denied his request for additional peremptory challenges, that after testimony from a designated first complaint witness the judge erred by allowing cumulative first complaint testimony without limiting instructions, and that the kidnap and assault and battery charges are lesser included offenses of the rape and should be dismissed.  The Appeals court reversed his convictions.  After granting leave for further appellate review the SJC affirmed all of the defendant’s conviction.

Com v. Franklin, 5/17/10

Commonwealth v. Messiah Franklin, May 17, 2010
456 Mass. 818

The Commonwealth appealed from the decision of the trial court to allow the defendant’s motion to suppress the introduction of a firearm into evidence.  The Appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling, and the SJC affirmed the ruling of the Appeals court. 

Com v. Winfield, 5/14/2010

Commonwealth v. Keith Winfield, May 14, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 716

The defendant was convicted of the forcible rape of a child under sixteen (two counts), indecent assault and battery of a child under fourteen, and assault and battery of a child causing serious bodily injury.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the judge erred by (1) denying his motion for required findings of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case; (2) permitting in evidence inflammatory photographs of the victim’s injuries; (3) permitting redaction of a portion of the defendant’s taped statement to the police; and (4) refusing to permit the defendant to impeach the victim’s mother for bias on her pending criminal charges. The Court held against the defendant in all appeal arguments and affirmed the convictions.

Com v. Humphries, 5/13/10

Commonwealth v. Jerold Humphries, May 13, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 702

The defendant appealed two drug offense convictions, arguing that his motion for a required finding of not guilty after the Commonwealth’s case in chief should have been allowed. The Appeals Court concluded that the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient to support his conviction and reversed.A quantity of drugs had been found in an apartment with few personal effects, excepting the defendant’s Massachusetts identification card and an envelope addressed to the defendant at a different address.

Com v. Cruz, 5/13/10

Commonwealth v. Gualberto Barrero Cruz, May 13, 2010 
456 Mass. 741

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, armed home invasion, and unlawful possession.

On appeal, the defendant argued that (1) the judge abused her discretion in denying his motion for a continuance made on the first day of trial; (2) the judge abused her discretion when she admitted in evidence the defendant’s prior bad conduct; (3) the defense counsel’s opening statement misstated which party had the burden of proof and confused the jury; and  (4) the judge denied the defendant his right to counsel when she denied his motion for a mistrial based on the difficulties and deterioration of his relationship with counsel during the trial.

Com v. Brown, 5/11/10

Commonwealth v. Michael R. Brown, May 11, 2010
456 Mass. 708

The defendant was a physician who was indicted on multiple charges of illegally distributing or dispensing controlled substances, submitting false medical claims, larceny, and possession of a controlled substance.  The defendant stated that his practice was to screen his patients to determine if they were abusing the controlled substances he was prescribing them, and if they were he would stop the prescriptions.  Evidence at trial showed that at least seven patients under the defendant’s treatment were shown though medical testing to be abusing the substances, and instead of stopping their prescriptions the defendant wrote more.  Furthermore the defendant engaged in a transaction with a patient whereby he wrote a prescription for a large amount of pills to the patient and agreed with the patient that he would take back 75 of the pills after the patient filled the prescription.  It is out of this transaction that the defendant raises their first point of contention.