Posts tagged "1109016"

Commonwealth v. St. George (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-090-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   15-P-948                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BRADLEY J. ST. GEORGE.     No. 15-P-948.   Norfolk.     April 14, 2016. – July 22, 2016.   Present:  Green, Trainor, & Milkey, JJ.     Controlled Substances.  Constitutional Law, Investigatory stop, Reasonable suspicion.  Threshold Police Inquiry.  Search and Seizure, Threshold police inquiry, Reasonable suspicion.  Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Plea.       Complaint received and sworn to in the Quincy Division of the District Court Department on May 17, 2010.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kevin J. O’Dea, J.; the case was tried before Robert P. Ziemian, J., and a motion for postconviction relief, filed on March 26, 2014, was heard by him.     Dana Alan Curhan for the defendant. Susanne M. O’Neil, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     TRAINOR, J.  The defendant, Bradley J. St. George, appeals his convictions of distribution of a class D substance, see G. L. c. 94C, § 32C, and violating the drug laws near a school zone or park, see G. L. c. 94C, § 32J.  The defendant contends that the judgments should be reversed for three reasons.  First, the defendant argues that his motion to suppress should have been allowed.  Second, the defendant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.  Third, the defendant claims that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for new trial because his trial counsel deprived him of effective assistance of counsel.  We affirm. Background.  The defendant challenges the motion judge’s decision on his motion to suppress, as well as the sufficiency of evidence at trial.  We will, therefore, first summarize the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress.  We will then summarize the additional evidence presented at trial. On May 14, 2010, at approximately 7:45 P.M., Quincy police Detectives William O’Brien and Dennis Keenan were working in the drug control unit.  Detective O’Brien noticed a man, later identified as Robert Fitzmorris, standing in front of an apartment building.  He talked on his cellular telephone, then sat in front of the building and appeared to be waiting.  Detective O’Brien placed him under surveillance and contacted Detective Keenan for assistance.  Less than one minute later, Detective O’Brien observed a vehicle, driven by the defendant, pick up Fitzmorris.  Detective O’Brien followed the defendant as he drove into the parking lot of the St. Mary School […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 22, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,