Posts tagged "Arias"

Commonwealth v. Arias (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-142-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-362                                        Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOSE L. ARIAS.     No. 16-P-362.   Essex.     January 13, 2017. – November 9, 2017.     Present:  Green, Trainor, Meade, Hanlon, & Desmond, JJ.[1]     Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause.  Search and Seizure, Probable cause, Exigent circumstances, Emergency, Multiple occupancy building, Protective sweep, Plain view.  Probable Cause.  Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Interlocutory appeal, Appeal by Commonwealth.  Evidence, Informer.  Witness, Police informer.  Controlled Substances.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 14, 2014.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Mary-Lou Rup, J.   An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Geraldine S. Hines, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by her to the Appeals Court.     Ronald DeRosa, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Esther J. Horwich (Stephen J. Wright also present) for the defendant.     TRAINOR, J.  This case comes to us on the Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court judge’s allowance of the defendant, Jose Arias’s, motion to suppress.  The Commonwealth argues that the judge erroneously concluded that the warrantless entry into the defendant’s apartment building was not supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances or, in the alternative, by the emergency aid doctrine.  For the reasons discussed, we reverse the judge’s order, based on the application of the emergency aid doctrine. Background.  We summarize the facts from the judge’s findings, supplemented by the evidence in the record that is uncontroverted and that was implicitly credited by the judge.  See Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., 448 Mass. 334, 337 (2007). On the evening of March 5, 2014, the Lawrence police department received a 911 call from a woman who reported that as she was walking down the street, she saw two “Spanish guys” “with a gun.”  She stated that she heard one of the men “load the gun” before entering the apartment building at “7 Royal Street.”  The woman was “really freaked out” and informed the dispatcher that she lived at “21 Royal Street.”  She also noted that she did not want her call to cause her any “problem[s],” considering that “one of the guys [had] looked at [her].” The woman gave a description of the men to the 911 […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 9, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Arias (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-132-13)

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       11‑P‑2170                                                                             Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  RANDY ARIAS. No. 11‑P‑2170. Essex.     March 21, 2013.  ‑  October 30, 2013. Present:  Katzmann, Meade, & Sullivan, JJ.     Homicide.  Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.  Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Objections to jury instructions.  Defense of Others.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 17, 2008.   The cases were tried before Richard E. Welch, III, J.     Theodore F. Riordan for the defendant. Kenneth E. Steinfield, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     MEADE, J.  After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree in the shooting death of Julio Zuniga (Zuniga), in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 1, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury to Roberto Francisco Sanchez Rios (Sanchez Rios), in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A(c).[1]  The principal issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.  On appeal, the defendant claims the judge failed to properly instruct the jury on defense of another.  We conclude the defendant’s claim was not preserved for appeal.  The judge’s defense of another instruction, when considered as a whole against the backdrop of the trial, would have been interpreted by a reasonable juror to have adequately conveyed the nature of the defense and its components.  Even if the instructions were infirm, given the nature of the defense was that the defendant did not shoot anyone and defense of another was not a live issue that was contested at trial, there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.  We affirm. 1.  Background.  a.  The club.  At approximately 11:00 P.M. on October 11, 2008, Zuniga went to a nightclub in Lawrence to watch a televised soccer game.  He was accompanied by his brothers, Francisco “Paco” Zuniga (Paco) and Altero Zuniga (Altero),[2] his cousin Sanchez Rios, and two friends, Oscar Bolanos and Jesus Estrella.  Zuniga’s group arrived at the club courtesy of Paco’s Ford Explorer sport utility vehicle (SUV).   At 12:15 A.M. on October 12, the defendant, Frederich Frias, and Edward Rosario entered the same club.  The defendant’s group arrived in a light brown Acura sedan driven by, and registered to, the defendant.  The defendant’s group spent some time in the downstairs area of the club, then proceeded upstairs; […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,