Com v. Backus

Commonwealth v. Juan Backus

Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 20, 2011

Docket No. 09-P-113.

Assault, Battery, Constitutional Rights, Jury-Waived Trial.

The defendant was convicted of assault and battery after a jury-waived trial. According to the evidence, the defendant drove from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, picked up his ex-girlfriend, and then continued to drive for an additional one and a half hours while punching her face repeatedly. On appeal, the defendant claimed that his waiver of a jury trial was invalid. The convicted was affirmed.

Facts

After his conviction for assault and battery, the defendant wanted to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial and proceed with a trial by jury. He had been in court repeatedly and when the judge asked him why he wanted to proceed with a jury trial, the defendant said that he had spoken with another inmate who relayed the benefits of having a jury. The judge, who felt that the defendant had a good grasp of the English language, had known what he was doing when he signed the waiver form, and had an excellent attorney, denied the motion and the defendant was convicted. Upon appealing and moving for a new trial, the defendant included a report by a psychologist that said that he lacked the mental capacity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial.

Issue 1: Was the defendant entitled to withdraw his waiver of a jury trial?

The defendant claimed that he did not know the benefits of a jury-waived trial versus a jury trial, and as such was entitled to withdraw his waiver. However, the judge determined that the defendant knew what he was doing when he waived his right to a jury trial and that his attorney would also have explained the merits of that decision in a competent way. Just because other individuals would have proceeded in a different manner was not grounds for the defendant to change his mind.

Issue 2: Was the defendant’s mental competency grounds for a new trial?

The defendant stated that because he had obtained a psychologist’s report that claimed he did not have the mental capacity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, he was entitled to a new trial on those grounds. He also claimed that his counsel was ineffective because the competency issue had not been raised. However, a judge is not bound by a psychologist’s report. Commonwealth v. Furr, 454 Mass. 101, 106 (2009). Furthermore, the defendant had been in the court room on 10 separate occasions and competency had never been raised, which supported the conclusion that it should not be entertained. Also, the defendant’s attorney was known to be both competent and thorough, so any alleged ineffectiveness was not present.

Judgments affirmed. Order denying motion for new trial affirmed.

–Prepared by JWK.