Posts tagged "1018214"

Commonwealth v. Roman (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-182-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   SJC-11311   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MIGUEL ROMAN. Hampshire.     September 5, 2014. – November 4, 2014.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide.  Practice, Criminal, Agreement between prosecutor and witness, Capital case, Conduct of prosecutor, Disclosure of evidence, Discovery, Examination of jurors, Instructions to jury, Interrogation of jurors, Jury and jurors, Mistrial, Required finding, Speedy trial, Voir dire, Witness. Constitutional Law, Jury.  Evidence, Bias of government witness, Credibility of witness, Immunized witness.  Witness, Bias, Credibility, Immunity.  Jury and Jurors.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 18, 2010.   A motion to dismiss was heard by Richard J. Carey, J.; a renewed motion to dismiss was considered by Cornelius J. Moriarity, II, J.; and the cases were tried before Constance M. Sweeney, J.     Donald A. Harwood for the defendant. Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     SPINA, J.  The defendant was convicted of deliberately premeditated murder and possession of a class B substance.  On appeal he asserts error in (1) the denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty; (2) the denial of his motion to dismiss based on Mass. R. Crim. P. 36, as amended, 422 Mass. 1503 (1996) (rule 36); (3) the denial of his motion to dismiss for delayed disclosure; (4) the judge’s failure to declare, sua sponte, a mistrial based on alleged jury tampering; and (5) the judge’s instruction pursuant to Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 406 Mass. 257 (1989).  The defendant also seeks relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We affirm the convictions and decline to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the conviction of murder to a lesser degree of guilt or order a new trial. 1.  Background.  The jury could have found the following facts.  Shortly before midnight on January 28, 2010, Angel Gonzalez (Angel) called the defendant on his cellular telephone to arrange a purchase of cocaine.  Angel and Luis Soto then drove to a night club in Holyoke where the defendant sold them cocaine.  They traveled in a grey four-door 2006 Nissan Altima owned by Soto’s girl friend.  They then drove to a bar in Holyoke, ingesting the cocaine en route. At about 12:56 A.M. on January 29, Angel’s mother called Angel on his cellular telephone and told him that the victim […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 4, 2014 at 7:25 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,