Commonwealth v. Maldonado (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-003-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑10769 COMMONWEALTH vs. CARLOS MALDONADO. Suffolk. September 10, 2013. ‑ January 8, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Jury, Public trial. Practice, Criminal, Public trial, Sequestration of witnesses, Transcript of testimony before grand jury, Hearsay, Jury and jurors, Capital case. Evidence, Conflicting statements of witness, Contradiction of witness, Credibility of witness, Explanation of previous testimony, Hearsay, Testimony before grand jury. Witness, Explanation of previous testimony, Credibility, Intimidation. Intimidation of Witness. Jury and Jurors. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 13, 2007. The cases were tried before Thomas E. Connolly, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by him. Chauncey B. Wood for the defendant. Teresa K. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, (David S. Fredette, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. GANTS, J. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 1, for the killing of Mark Parilla.[1] The defendant raises four issues on appeal. First, he argues that his right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated by what he characterizes as a closure of the court room arising from the judge’s order to require all spectators attending the trial to sign in and show identification. Second, he contends that the judge erred by admitting in evidence the grand jury testimony of a prosecution witness without complying with the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55 (1984). Third, he claims that the admission in evidence of prejudicial and inadmissible hearsay that one prosecution witness told another prosecution witness that he had seen the defendant shoot the victim created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Fourth, he argues that the judge violated his Sixth Amendment right to be tried by an impartial jury by failing to conduct a voir dire of all the jurors after one juror expressed concern that the defendant had access to the juror’s address in the juror’s confidential questionnaire. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial. After a complete review of the […]