Posts tagged "1006017"

Commonwealth v. Holland (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-060-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-08737   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DANIEL L. HOLLAND.       Norfolk.     November 10, 2016. – April 19, 2017.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, & Lowy, JJ.     Homicide.  Armed Home Invasion.  Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Fair trial.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Postconviction relief, Assistance of counsel, Fair trial, Comment by judge.  Mental Impairment.  Insanity.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 18, 1998.   The cases were tried before Thomas E. Connolly, J., and motions for a new trial, filed on April 3, 2006, and December 18, 2008, were heard by him.     Kevin S. Nixon for the defendant. Tracey A. Cusick, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     HINES, J.  On October 13, 1998, the victim was shot to death in her home.  A jury convicted the defendant, the victim’s estranged husband, of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and armed home invasion.  The defendant appealed from his convictions and from the denial of his two motions for a new trial.  In his brief on appeal, the defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his first motion for a new trial on the ground that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to investigate and present a defense of lack of criminal responsibility.   We affirm his convictions as well as the orders denying the motions for a new trial. Background.  1.  The trial.  Based on the evidence adduced at trial, the jury could have found the following facts.  The defendant and the victim were married in 1989, and their son was born later that year.  A few years later, the couple moved into their family home, located in Quincy.  As time progressed, the marriage became turbulent and tension grew between the couple.  In February, 1998, the victim sought and was granted a restraining order against the defendant, the terms of which required him to vacate the marital home.  For a number of months, the defendant stayed with family or friends and later moved into an apartment in the Dorchester section of Boston.  In September, 1998, the defendant and his then girl friend moved to Richmond, New Hampshire, to live with the defendant’s uncle. On the afternoon of the day of the murder, the defendant […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 19, 2017 at 3:20 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,