Commonwealth v. Camacho (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-152-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11138 COMMONWEALTH vs. JESSE CAMACHO. Suffolk. May 8, 2015. – September 8, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Armed Assault with Intent to Murder. Defense of Others. Evidence, Prior violent conduct, Relevancy and materiality, Hearsay, Flight, Disclosure of evidence, Exculpatory. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Discovery, Disclosure of evidence, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel, Argument by prosecutor. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 2, 2008. The cases were tried before Patrick F. Brady, J.; a motion for discovery and for a new trial, filed on January 11, 2013, was heard by him; and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him. Elizabeth A. Billowitz for the defendant. Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick M. Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. CORDY, J. In the early morning hours of January, 24, 2008, Jeffrey Santiago was shot and killed at a night club in Chelsea. Surveillance footage and multiple eyewitnesses identified the defendant, Jesse Camacho, as the shooter. The defendant was charged with murder in the first degree, unlawfully carrying a firearm, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and armed assault with intent to murder. At trial, the Commonwealth proceeded with respect to the murder charge on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity and cruelty. The defendant contended that he acted in defense of another. A jury found the defendant guilty on all charges. On appeal, the defendant claims several errors, including error in the trial judge’s rulings excluding both so-called Adjutant evidence of prior violent acts of the victim and his friends, see Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (2005), and statements the defendant made to his girl friend.[1] We find no reversible error arising from the defendant’s claims. Further, we conclude that there is no basis for exercising our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the verdict of murder to a lesser degree of guilt or order a new trial. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. Background. We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reserving certain details for our analysis of the issues raised on appeal. On the evening of January 23, 2008, the […]