Com v. Hampton, 6/30/10

Commonwealth vs. Lord Hampton, June 30, 2010

457 Mass. 152

Motion to Suppress Statement due to Failure to permit use of Telephone.  Jury Issues, Structural Error, Due Process, Criminal Record Checks of Jurors 

The defendant was convicted of the September 28, 1999, murders of a fourteen-year old girl (victim) and her eight-month old fetus, both on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. On appeal he asserts error in the denial of his motion to suppress the statement he gave to Boston police, allegedly because they violated his right under G.L. c. 276, § 33A, to make a telephone call; and in the denial of his request to obtain criminal records of jurors after the Commonwealth obtained criminal records of four jurors and after the jury were sworn. We affirm the convictions and decline to grant relief under G.L. 278, § 33E. 

Com v. Degray, 6/25/10

Commonwealth v. Norman Degray, June 25, 2010

77 Mass. App. Ct. 122

Seizure, Probable Cause 

The issue is whether police officers may reasonably search the trunk of an automobile where there was an odor of burnt marijuana in the vehicle, where the driver of the automobile admitted that he and the vehicle’s other occupants had been smoking marijuana in the automobile, and where two marijuana cigarettes as well as marijuana remnants were found in the passenger compartment.  The Commonwealth had appealed from a Superior Court judge’s allowance of the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the trunk.  The Appeals Court reversed. 

Com v. Lojko, 6/22/10

Commonwealth v. Brandon Lojko, June 22, 2010

77 Mass. App. Ct. 8

Firearm Storage 

The defendant was convicted in a bench trial of improper storage of a firearm. The Appeals Court concluded that the judged erred as matter of law in construing the requirements of the statute, and reversed.

Com v. Limone, 6/22/10

Commonwealth v. Joseph Limone, June 22, 2010

77 Mass. App. Ct. 903 

Seizure, Operating Under the Influence, Extraterritorial Stop, Breathalyzer Test, Field Sobriety Test 

The defendant was convicted of (1) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, (2) operating a motor vehicle after revocation of his license, and (3) operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, fourth or subsequent offense.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.  He claimed that evidence was obtained as a result of an unlawful extraterritorial seizure.
   

Com v. Miranda, 6/21/10

Commonwealth v. Maria A. Miranda, June 21, 2010

77 Mass. App. Ct. 76

Jury Instructions, Defense of Another 

A jury convicted the defendant of assault and battery on a police officer. The defendant appealed, claiming that the judge erred in not instructing the jury on defense of another. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction.

The defendant was waiting for her friend while sitting in the driver’s seat of her SUV in a parking lot. A state trooper approached the vehicle and asked for the defendant’s license and registration.  He noticed indicia of alcohol impairment, and the defendant admitted to drinking.  At the trooper’s request, the defendant walked to the front of the SUV.  The defendant’s friend, Battle, approached the back of the SUV and began yelling at the trooper.  Battle also showed indicia of alcohol impairment. The defendant coaxed Battle into the vehicle.

Com v. Grannum, 6/18/10

Commonwealth vs. Kevin E. Grannum, June 18, 2010

457 Mass. 128

Motion to Withdraw Admission to Sufficient Facts for Failure to Provide Immigration Warnings 

Facts 

In 1986 the defendant was charged with receiving stolen property worth less than $100 and several motor vehicle offenses.  The defendant either pleaded guilty or admitted to sufficient facts with respect to all the charges.  Findings of guilty were entered for each charge and fines were imposed.  In 1999 the defendant moved for a new trial on the basis that the trial judge failed to warn him of the possible immigration consequences of his admissions.  Two court dates in district court were set but nothing happened.  Later, in 2006, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his admission to sufficient facts based again on the failure to provide immigration warnings.  This motion was denied, and the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.  In 2007 the defendant moved in district court for reconsideration of his 2006 motion arguing that in both the 1999 and 2006 motions, he had established that he was eligible for relief under G.L. c. 278, § 29D.  The defendant also included a letter from another attorney to his attorney stating the belief that the defendant’s admission in the prior case and a subsequent conviction for malicious destruction of property made him eligible for deportation.  This motion was denied in the district court.
  

Com v. Jones, 6/18/10

Commonwealth v. Kevin Jones, June 18, 2010

77 Mass.App.Ct. 53

New Trial, Assistance of Counsel, Witness Confrontation, Motor Vehicle, Drug Certificate, Ballistician’s Certificate, Firearms 

The defendant was convicted of (1) carrying a firearm without a license; (2) assault and battery; and (3) possession of a class B substance (cocaine).  The defendant’s direct appeal, appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, and appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration were consolidated.  

On appeal, the defendant claimed that (1) the judge committed reversible error in denying his motion for a new trial and his motion for reconsideration; (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions of battery and possession of a firearm; and (3) his right of confrontation was violated by the introduction of ballistics and drug certificates without the supporting testimony of the individuals who performed the tests.   

The Appeals Court held in favor of the defendant in his contention regarding the admission of ballistics and drug certificates.  The Appeals Court reversed the judgments on the counts of the complaint charging carrying a firearm and possession of cocaine.  The remaining judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial were affirmed.