Posts tagged "Gomes"

Commonwealth v. Gomes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-022-18)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12290

COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JEREMY D. GOMES.

February 5, 2018.

Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Request for jury instructions.  Identification.  Evidence, Identification.

In 2015, we affirmed Jeremy D. Gomes’s convictions of mayhem and breaking and entering a vehicle in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony.  Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352, 378 (2015).  At trial, “[t]he defendant requested that the judge provide a jury instruction regarding eyewitness identification that essentially mirrored a model instruction that had become effective in New Jersey approximately one week before the defendant’s trial commenced.”  Id. at 357 & n.10, citing State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 219, 228-229 (2011).  The judge instead gave the model jury instruction regarding eyewitness identification that we adopted in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 378 Mass. 296, 310-311 (1979) (Appendix).  Gomes, supra at 353.  We concluded that the judge did not abuse his discretion in doing so where the defendant failed to furnish “any expert testimony, scholarly articles, or treatises that would reasonably have enabled the judge to determine whether the principles in the defendant’s proposed instruction were ‘so generally accepted’ that it would be appropriate to instruct the jury regarding them . . . and where there was an instruction approved by this court that was not erroneous but, at worst, inadequate and incomplete.”  Id. at 359-360. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 5, 2018 at 4:13 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Gomes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-168-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-11427

COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOSEPH GOMES.

Suffolk.     April 8, 2016. – October 26, 2016.

Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Duffly, & Hines, JJ.[1]

Homicide.  Armed Assault with Intent to Murder.  Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.  Joint Enterprise.  Intent.  Evidence, Joint venturer, Intent, Relevancy and materiality, Spontaneous utterance, Identification, Hearsay, Motive.  Jury and Jurors.  Identification.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Jury and jurors, Question by jury, Instructions to jury, Request for jury instructions. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - October 26, 2016 at 6:36 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Gomes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-002-15)

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-11537

COMMONWEALTH vs. JEREMY D. GOMES.

Berkshire. September 2, 2014. – January 12, 2015.

Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, &
Hines, JJ.

Identification. Evidence, Identification. Practice, Criminal,

Request for jury instructions, Instructions to jury.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court

Department on October 24, 2011.

The cases were tried before by John A. Agostini, J.

The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for
direct appellate review.

John Fennel, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the
defendant.

John Bossé, Assistant District Attorney, for the
Commonwealth.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:
Daniel F. Conley, District Attorney, & Cailin M. Campbell,
Assistant District Attorney, for District Attorney for the
Suffolk District.
Lisa J. Steele for Massachusetts Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers.
David W. Ogden, Daniel S. Volchok, Francesco Valentini, &
Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle, of the District of Columbia, & John C.
Polley for American Psychological Association & another.2
M. Chris Fabricant & Karen Newirth, of New York, Joshua D.
Rogaczewski & Johnny H. Walker, of the District of Columbia, &
Kevin M. Bolan for the Innocence Network. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - January 13, 2015 at 3:06 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. Gomes (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-075-13)

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

SJC‑11278

COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MICHAEL S. GOMES.

May 8, 2013.

Practice, Criminal, Sentence, Comment by judge.  Judge.

Six years after his convictions were affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2004), and four years after the denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed, see Commonwealth v. Gomes, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 1111 (2006), the defendant filed a motion for relief from unlawful sentence.  See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (a), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001).  The motion alleged that the trial judge perceived the defendant’s trial testimony as perjurious, and then improperly considered his testimony in imposing sentence.  The judge stated during sentencing, “I was also — I’m also affected by the testimony of the defendant himself who told a story that was really not believable at all.”  The motion was denied by a different judge, as the trial judge had retired.  The Appeals Court affirmed the denial in a decision pursuant to its rule 1:28.  See Commonwealth v. Gomes, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2012).  We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 8, 2013 at 3:30 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,