Commonwealth v. Chatman (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-038-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-08921 COMMONWEALTH vs. DEMOND CHATMAN. Suffolk. December 11, 2015. – March 16, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Practice, Criminal, New trial, Competency to stand trial, Capital case. Evidence, Competency. Due Process of Law, Competency to stand trial. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 5, 2000. After review by this court, 466 Mass. 327 (2013), a motion for a new trial was heard by Barbara J. Rouse, J. Edward L. Hayden for the defendant. Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney (Mark T. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. CORDY, J. On February 10, 2000, police responded to a telephone call made by the defendant, Demond Chatman, reporting that his mother, the victim, had been shot. The defendant directed officers to the home of the victim’s aunt, where the defendant was living. The police found the victim’s body in the aunt’s bedroom. On January 24, 2002, a jury returned a guilty verdict against the defendant on the charge of murder in the first degree. The defendant appealed, and, in May, 2008, during the pendency of that appeal, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the ground that he had not been competent to stand trial. The motion judge, who was also the trial judge, denied the motion in October, 2011, after a nonevidentiary hearing. The defendant appealed. In September, 2013, we reversed the denial of the motion for a new trial and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing consistent with a newly established burden of proof on defendants who, postverdict, seek a new trial on the basis of incompetency when the issue was not raised or considered at the time of, or prior to, trial. See Commonwealth v. Chatman, 466 Mass. 327, 335-336, 339 (2013). In November, 2014, after four days of evidentiary hearings, the motion judge again denied the defendant’s motion. Now before us for the second time, the defendant combines his direct appeal from his conviction with his challenge to the denial of his motion for a new trial.[1] He also requests relief pursuant to our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. As we explain below, our review of the entire record discloses no basis on which to grant relief. We therefore […]