Commonwealth v. Robert Amaral
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 6, 2011
Docket No: 09-P-1683
Assault and Battery, Self-Defense, Evidence, Prior Violent Conduct
The Fall River Division of the District Court convicted the defendant of assault and battery following a bench trial. The defendant appealed, asserting that 1) the trial judge erred in restricting cross-examination regarding the victim's training and experience as a boxer and martial artist to establish that the victim was the first aggressor; and 2) the restitution order entered by the judge violates his Due Process rights because it was based on evidence that failed to comply with G.L. c. 233, sec 78G. Both issues were affirmed.
Pages
DISCLAIMER:
These summaries of case decisions are intended for informational purposes only. They are not intended to be interpretations of the law, nor do they encompass the subtleties of each case. Therefore, reference to the original text is indispensable.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Com v. Young
Commonwealth v. Justin L. Young
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 6, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1721
Search and Seizure, Automobile, Arrest, Controlled Substances, Firearms
A judge sitting jury-waived found the defendant guilty of carrying a firearm without a license, possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. The defendant appeals this decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a pat frisk taken as a result of his physical response to an exit order by the arresting police officers. Defendant contends that the exit order leading to the frisk of his person and discovery of the handgun was unlawful because 1) there was no basis for stopping the vehicle initially and 2) the Fourth Amendment and art. 14 of the MA Declaration of Rights forbid the exit order given to him as a passenger in the vehicle.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
January 6, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1721
Search and Seizure, Automobile, Arrest, Controlled Substances, Firearms
A judge sitting jury-waived found the defendant guilty of carrying a firearm without a license, possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm. The defendant appeals this decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained during a pat frisk taken as a result of his physical response to an exit order by the arresting police officers. Defendant contends that the exit order leading to the frisk of his person and discovery of the handgun was unlawful because 1) there was no basis for stopping the vehicle initially and 2) the Fourth Amendment and art. 14 of the MA Declaration of Rights forbid the exit order given to him as a passenger in the vehicle.
Labels:
Arrest,
Automobile,
Controlled substances,
Firearms,
Search and Seizure
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Com v. Arnaut
Commonwealth v. Jose Arnaut
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 5, 2011
Docket No: 09-P-1872
Retroactivity of Judicial Holding, Motion for New Trial
The defendant appeals from his 2004 conviction on multiple drug charges, alleging that the denial of his second motion for a new trial was wrongfully denied. Defendant argues that Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) should be applied retroactively to a case pending on collateral review.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 5, 2011
Docket No: 09-P-1872
Retroactivity of Judicial Holding, Motion for New Trial
The defendant appeals from his 2004 conviction on multiple drug charges, alleging that the denial of his second motion for a new trial was wrongfully denied. Defendant argues that Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) should be applied retroactively to a case pending on collateral review.
Com. v. Roderiques
Commonwealth v. Roderiques
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 5, 2011
78 Mass. App. Ct. 515
Assault and Battery, Wanton or Reckless Conduct, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, Lesser included offense, Request for jury instructions, Expert Opinion
A grand jury issued two indictments against the defendant –assault and battery upon a child under fourteen years of age causing substantial bodily injury and wantonly and recklessly permitting an assault and battery upon a child that caused the child substantial bodily injury. Per the defendant’s request, the trial judge gave an instruction on reckless endangerment of a child as a lesser included offense of second charge. The jury found the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment of a child. The defendant filed a motion to vacate the conviction, which was denied. On appeal, the defendant argued that reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense and that the Commonwealth’s expert offered an impermissible opinion about an ultimate issue in the case. The judgment was affirmed.
Massachusetts Appeals Court
January 5, 2011
78 Mass. App. Ct. 515
Assault and Battery, Wanton or Reckless Conduct, Reckless Endangerment of a Child, Lesser included offense, Request for jury instructions, Expert Opinion
A grand jury issued two indictments against the defendant –assault and battery upon a child under fourteen years of age causing substantial bodily injury and wantonly and recklessly permitting an assault and battery upon a child that caused the child substantial bodily injury. Per the defendant’s request, the trial judge gave an instruction on reckless endangerment of a child as a lesser included offense of second charge. The jury found the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment of a child. The defendant filed a motion to vacate the conviction, which was denied. On appeal, the defendant argued that reckless endangerment is not a lesser included offense and that the Commonwealth’s expert offered an impermissible opinion about an ultimate issue in the case. The judgment was affirmed.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Com v. Arias
Commonwealth v. Jorge Arias
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 15, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1792
Larceny, Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, In-Court Identification, Special Verdict Slip
The jury found the defendant guilty for larceny over $250, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for a police officer. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the absence of a special verdict slip for the charge of assault by means of a dangerous weapon created a miscarriage of justice; that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of assault by means of a dangerous weapon; and that the judge abused his discretion in denying his request for a "non-suggestive" in-court identification procedure.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 15, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1792
Larceny, Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon, In-Court Identification, Special Verdict Slip
The jury found the defendant guilty for larceny over $250, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, reckless operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for a police officer. The defendant appealed this decision, arguing that the absence of a special verdict slip for the charge of assault by means of a dangerous weapon created a miscarriage of justice; that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of assault by means of a dangerous weapon; and that the judge abused his discretion in denying his request for a "non-suggestive" in-court identification procedure.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Com v. Cornelius
Commonwealth v. Clint A. Cornelius
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 10, 2010
Docket No: 08-P-1655
Firearms, Firearms without License
Superior Court judge decided three questions of law that are the topic of the appeal:
1) Does G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(a) require proof that a defendant "carried" a firearm?;
2) Does the satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) satisfy the firearm possession exemption in G.L. 269, sec. 10(a)(4) by itself?; and
3) Whether satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) is a defense for violation of G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(m)?
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 10, 2010
Docket No: 08-P-1655
Firearms, Firearms without License
Superior Court judge decided three questions of law that are the topic of the appeal:
1) Does G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(a) require proof that a defendant "carried" a firearm?;
2) Does the satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) satisfy the firearm possession exemption in G.L. 269, sec. 10(a)(4) by itself?; and
3) Whether satisfaction of the firearm identification card exception in G.L. c. 140, sec. 129C(j) is a defense for violation of G.L. c. 269, sec. 10(m)?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Com v. Hadley
Commonwealth v. Dennis Hadley
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 8, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1177
Motion to Suppress, Voluntariness of statement, Miranda waiver, Involuntary manslaughter, battery
A jury in the Superior Court found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter by battery. Defendant appeals the verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and the judge wrongly refused to suppress two separate sets of statements: oral and written statements made shortly after the battery and oral statements made two years after the incident.
Massachusetts Court of Appeals
December 8, 2010
Docket No. 09-P-1177
Motion to Suppress, Voluntariness of statement, Miranda waiver, Involuntary manslaughter, battery
A jury in the Superior Court found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter by battery. Defendant appeals the verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and the judge wrongly refused to suppress two separate sets of statements: oral and written statements made shortly after the battery and oral statements made two years after the incident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)