Posts tagged "1002214"

Commonwealth v. McGee (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-022-14)

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑09715   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  RICKY D. McGEE.     Suffolk.     October 11, 2013.  ‑  February 12, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.     Homicide.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, New trial, Discovery, Instructions to jury, Request for jury instructions.  Evidence, Exculpatory, Ballistician’s certificate, Prior misconduct, Credibility of witness, Relevancy and materiality, Photograph.  Witness, Intimidation, Credibility.  Intimidation of Witness.  Firearms.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 25, 1997.   The cases were tried before Regina L. Quinlan, J., and motions for a new trial, filed on November 10, 1998, and April 14, 2011, were heard by her.     David A.F. Lewis for the defendant. Amanda Teo, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     DUFFLY, J.  On October 20, 1998, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, G. L. c. 265, § 1, in the shooting death of Getasetegn Yalew.[1]  The defendant’s appeal from his convictions and his appeal from the denial of his first motion for a new trial were stayed pending determination of his second motion for a new trial; that motion was denied, as was the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and his request for posttrial discovery.  These appeals were consolidated and are now before us. The defendant argues that his new trial motions should have been allowed because of newly discovered evidence, and that it was an abuse of discretion to deny his requests for posttrial discovery.  The defendant maintains further that the trial judge erred in failing to give a specific instruction on witness credibility, and made errors in certain evidentiary rulings.  He also seeks relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We conclude that none of the defendant’s claims of error requires reversal, and find no basis to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to order a new trial.  Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. Facts.  We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving mention of certain facts for our discussion of the issues.  Some time between 2:16 A.M. and 2:40 A.M. on April 16, 1997, the victim, a store clerk at a convenience store in the Fenway section of Boston, was shot in the back of the head with a .38 caliber revolver.  The victim, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 12, 2014 at 9:44 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,