Posts tagged "Cole"

Commonwealth v. Cole C., a juvenile (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-008-18)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-1645                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  COLE C., a juvenile.[1]     No. 16-P-1645.   Suffolk.     November 8, 2017. – January 19, 2018.   Present:  Milkey, Blake, & Singh, JJ.     Juvenile Court, Jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction, Juvenile Court.  Youthful Offender Act.  Practice, Criminal, Indictment, Transfer hearing.  Statute, Construction.     Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court  Department on July 5, 2016.   After transfer to the Suffolk County Division of the Juvenile Court Department, a motion to dismiss was heard by Peter M. Coyne, J.     Colby M. Tilley, Assistant District Attorney (Michael V. Glennon, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth. Melissa Allen Celli for the defendant.     MILKEY, J.  A grand jury indicted the defendant as a youthful offender after he had turned eighteen years old.  Relying on Commonwealth v. Mogelinski, 466 Mass. 627 (2013) (Mogelinski I), a Juvenile Court judge dismissed the indictments for want of jurisdiction.  For the reasons that follow, we reverse and order that the indictments be reinstated. Background.  The relevant facts are undisputed.  On April 20, 2016, Boston police arrested the defendant on a variety of charges related to an armed home invasion that occurred that day.  He was seventeen years old at that time.  After his arrest, the police took him to a Department of Youth Services (DYS) facility.  The following day, a twelve-count delinquency complaint was issued, and a second delinquency complaint that included two additional charges was issued a day later.  The defendant was arraigned on April 25, 2016, and two days after that (one week after the alleged incident), he turned eighteen. On July 5, 2016, a grand jury indicted the defendant as a youthful offender on five charges:  armed home invasion, armed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, and intimidation of a witness.  The indictments were filed with the Juvenile Court on July 11, 2016, and the case was continued to July 26, 2016, for arraignment.  However, a Juvenile Court judge refused to arraign the defendant on the youthful offender indictments on the grounds that — because the defendant had turned eighteen prior to the issuance of the indictments — the court lacked jurisdiction over them.  The judge also denied alternative relief that the Commonwealth requested, the holding of a transfer hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 119, § 72A, in […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 19, 2018 at 4:20 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Cole (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-201-15)

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-11346   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  LESLIE COLE.       Bristol.     October 9, 2015. – December 18, 2015.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Homicide.  Evidence, Medical record, Consciousness of guilt, Hearsay, Expert opinion.  Deoxyribonucleic Acid.  Witness, Expert.  Constitutional Law, Confrontation of witnesses.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Hearsay, Instructions to jury, Confrontation of witnesses, Discovery, Argument by prosecutor, Required finding.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 3, 2006.   The cases were tried before Robert J. Kane, J.     James E. Methe for the defendant. Mary O’Neil, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.          SPINA, J.  A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant, Leslie M. Cole, of the murder in the first degree of Rudolph Santos (victim) on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 1.[1]  On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the trial judge erred by admitting in evidence unredacted medical records purportedly belonging to the defendant, together with related testimony from a nurse practitioner, and by instructing the jury on consciousness of guilt; (2) the admission of expert testimony concerning the statistical significance of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses; (3) the trial judge erred by admitting in evidence the victim’s T-shirt, notwithstanding a purported discovery violation by the Commonwealth; (4) the prosecutor made improper remarks during her opening statement and her closing argument; and (5) the judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion for required findings of not guilty.  The defendant also requests that we exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the conviction of murder to a lesser degree of guilt or to order a new trial.  For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and decline to grant relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Background.  We summarize the facts the jury could have found, reserving further details for our discussion of the alleged errors. Shortly before Christmas in 2005, the defendant and William Fields, who sold drugs together, discussed the possibility of robbing an unspecified drug dealer in order to resolve a cash flow problem.  One day when the two men were visiting the New Bedford home of Fields’s friend, Shannon Almeida, they asked her if she knew anyone […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 18, 2015 at 8:51 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Cole (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-097-14)

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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us     SJC‑11316   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CASEY L. COLE.     Plymouth.     November 5, 2013.  ‑  June 11, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.   Community Parole Supervision for Life.  Sex Offender.  Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act.  Constitutional Law, Separation of powers, Sentence, Sex offender, Parole, Severability.  Due Process of Law, Sentence, Sex offender, Parole.  Parole.  Imprisonment, Parole.  Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Parole.  Statute, Validity, Severability.       Complaint received and sworn to in the Brockton Division of the District Court Department on March 22, 2010.   A motion to correct sentence, filed on July 12, 2012, was considered by Mary L. Amrhein, J.   The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.     Beth L. Eisenberg, Committee for Public Counsel Services (Laura M. Banwarth with her) for the defendant. Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Jeffrey G. Harris, Margaret Fox, Elizabeth A. Lunt, & Patricia Garin, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.     GANTS, J.  The issue presented on appeal is whether community parole supervision for life (CPSL) violates our separation of powers doctrine, articulated in art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, by improperly delegating to the parole board, an entity of the executive branch, the exercise of the judicial power to impose sentences.  We conclude that CPSL grants to the parole board a quintessential judicial power, the power to determine whether a defendant should be sentenced to additional terms of imprisonment, and therefore violates art. 30.  Because the imposition of a CPSL sentence by the parole board constitutes an unconstitutional violation of our separation of powers doctrine, the defendant’s CPSL sentence must be vacated. Background.  The defendant, Casey Cole, was classified as a level two sex offender by the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB), and therefore was required to register as a sex offender and provide SORB with notice of any change of address.  See G. L. c. 6, § 178E (h).  See also G. L. c. 6, §§ 178C-178P.  On March 22, 2010, a complaint issued charging the defendant with failing to provide notice of a change of address, as a level two or level three sex offender, in violation of G. L. c. 6, § 178H (a) (1).  Among the potential penalties identified in the complaint was “lifetime community parole supervision.” On August 23, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 12, 2014 at 7:33 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,