Posts tagged "Forte"

Commonwealth v. Forte (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-148-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10991   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MICHAEL FORTE. Hampden.     January 10, 2014. – August 22, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ.[1] Homicide.  Identification.  Evidence, Identification, Photograph, Videotape, State of mind, Prior misconduct, Disclosure of evidence, Exculpatory.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, New trial, Identification of defendant in courtroom, Required finding, Disclosure of evidence, Recalling witness, Self-representation.  Due Process of Law, Disclosure of evidence.  Witness, Recalling.  Subornation of Perjury.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 24, 2008.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Constance M. Sweeney, J.; the case was tried before her; and a motion for a new trial, filed on September 26, 2012, was considered by her.     Kevin S. Nixon for the defendant. Katherine A. Robertson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     CORDY, J.  Shortly before 3:30 A.M. on July 27, 2008, Steven Donoghue, a homeless man, was stabbed in the alcove of a storefront at the intersection of State and Bliss Streets in downtown Springfield.  He died several hours later following extensive surgery.  Two young women, who had gone out for a late-night meal, reported the incident after having passed the victim alive and minutes later discovering him bleeding profusely.  They had seen only one other person on the street that night.  Through a series of identification efforts, including reliance on footage from surveillance videotapes, the defendant was identified and indicted as the perpetrator. Following a trial at which the defendant represented himself with the assistance of standby counsel, the defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty and sentenced to life in prison.  Through appellate counsel, the defendant appeals from his conviction and from the denial of his motion for a new trial and for an evidentiary hearing.[2]  He asserts that the judge, who served as trial judge and motion judge for all relevant matters, erred in denying his motion to suppress identifications, permitting the introduction of evidence of prior bad acts to show the defendant’s state of mind, denying his motion for a required finding of not guilty, and denying his request to recall the two percipient witnesses, which was the subject of his motion for a new trial.  In addition, he claims that his due process […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 23, 2014 at 4:00 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,