Commonwealth v. Alicea (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-066-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑09558 COMMONWEALTH vs. JUAN PABLO ALICEA. Worcester. December 7, 2012. ‑ April 12, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Constitutional Law, Self‑incrimination, Assistance of counsel, Identification. Evidence, Testimonial privilege, Identification, Expert opinion. Due Process of Law, Identification. Witness, Privilege, Self‑incrimination, Competency, Expert. Identification. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, In camera inspection, Verdict, New trial, Assistance of counsel, Motion to suppress, Jury and jurors, Voir dire. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 15, 2002. The cases were tried before Jeffrey A. Locke, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on December 21, 2009, was considered by him. Greg T. Schubert for the defendant. Stephen J. Carley, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. BOTSFORD, J. In January, 2004, a Superior Court jury found the defendant, Juan Pablo Alicea, guilty of murder in the first degree of Hylas Strange, III, based on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty,[1] and assault and battery of Larisa Andujar by means of a dangerous weapon. The charges concerned a shooting on the outdoor stairs of an apartment building that resulted in the death of Strange and a gunshot wound to Andujar. The defendant appeals from his convictions and from the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial. He argues that the judge erroneously accepted the assertion by a witness of privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and conducted a defective hearing on the witness’s claim of privilege; the jury’s verdict of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon was not unanimous; the judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial because the defendant’s trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance in several respects; and the evidence was insufficient to prove extreme atrocity or cruelty. We affirm the defendant’s convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, and after a thorough review of the record, we decline to exercise our power to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background. We recite the facts as the jury could have found them at trial, reserving some facts for later discussion. On the afternoon on […]