Posts tagged "1000318"

Commonwealth v. Lopes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-003-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   SJC-11587   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CRISOSTOMO LOPES.       Suffolk.     September 8, 2017. – January 10, 2018.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Budd, & Kafker, JJ.     Homicide.  Jury and Jurors.  Evidence, Relevancy and materiality, Prior misconduct, Cross-examination.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Challenge to jurors, Argument by prosecutor.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 1, 2010.   The case was heard by Patrick F. Brady, J.     Alan Jay Black for the defendant. Janis DiLoreto Smith, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick M. Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth.          KAFKER, J.  The defendant, Crisostomo Lopes, pulled the fourteen year old victim off a motorized scooter and held him, while the codefendant, a juvenile, shot him multiple times at close range.  The victim succumbed to a gunshot wound to his chest shortly thereafter.  After a jury trial, both the defendant and his codefendant were convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.[1] In his appeal, the defendant claims that reversal of his conviction is required because the judge erred by:  (1) failing to find that the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenges of prospective jurors were improper; (2) allowing evidence of the defendant’s gang affiliation and the victim’s brother’s knowledge of neighborhood gang activity; (3) precluding the defendant from cross-examining a police officer witness on prior misconduct; and (4) allowing the prosecutor to make improper and prejudicial statements during the Commonwealth’s closing argument.  For the reasons stated below, we conclude that there has been no reversible error, and after a thorough review of the record, we decline to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce or set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree.  Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s conviction. Background.  We summarize the facts that the jury could have found, reserving certain details for discussion of the legal issues. The victim was fourteen years old and lived on Norton Street in the Dorchester section of Boston.  On May 30, 2010, the victim had been riding a scooter around Dorchester that was being driven by his fifteen year old brother.  Each was wearing a helmet, but different styles.  They were riding the scooter on Inwood Street, approaching Olney Street, when the brother almost hit the defendant, who […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 11, 2018 at 7:58 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,