Commonwealth v. Okoro (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-047-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11659 COMMONWEALTH vs. EMMANUEL OKORO. Plymouth. September 3, 2014. – March 23, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Sentence, Cruel and unusual punishment, Parole, Separation of powers. Due Process of Law, Sentence, Parole. Parole. Witness, Expert. Evidence, Expert opinion. Defense of Others. Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Parole, Instructions to jury. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 29, 2008. The case was tried before Paul E. Troy, J.; a motion for a new trial, filed on January 7, 2011, was considered by him; a motion for a new trial, a reduction in verdict, and resentencing, filed on September 13, 2012, was heard by him; and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Ruth Greenberg for the defendant. Matthew Libby, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. The following submitted briefs for amici curiae: Jeanne M. Kepthorne for Markeese Mitchell. Barbara Kaban, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Youth Advocacy Division, Committee for Public Counsel Services, & others. Laura M. Banwarth for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Richard L. Goldman for Terrance Pabon. BOTSFORD, J. The defendant, Emmanuel Okoro, appeals from his conviction of murder in the second degree. He was fifteen years old at the time of the offense, January 1, 2008. Pursuant to the sentencing statutes then in effect, the defendant received a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after fifteen years. The defendant argues that in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2460, 2469 (2012), and this court’s decision in Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655, 658 (2013) (Diatchenko I), the defendant’s mandatory life sentence constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 26 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and also violates constitutional guarantees of due process and separation of powers. The defendant further argues that his conviction should be overturned because (1) the trial judge erroneously prevented him from introducing expert testimony and arguing that the way the brain develops in children and adolescents makes the condition of being a […]