Commonwealth v. Jackson (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-064-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10398 COMMONWEALTH vs. MICHAEL JACKSON. Suffolk. January 9, 2015. – April 16, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Duffly, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Empanelment of jury, Public trial, Failure to object, Waiver, Capital case. Jury and Jurors. Duress. Constitutional Law, Jury, Public trial, Waiver of constitutional rights. Waiver. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 27, 2002. The cases were tried before Patrick F. Brady, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on March 18, 2010, was heard by him. Emanuel Howard for the defendant. Helle Sachse, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Afton M. Templin, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. CORDY, J. After a jury trial, the defendant, Michael Jackson, was convicted of murdering Jose Lane, the unlawful possession of a firearm, and the unlawful possession of ammunition. At trial, the defendant had requested that the judge instruct the jury that duress was an available defense to intentional murder, which the judge declined to do. Prior to sentencing, the defendant orally moved for a new trial and for a mistrial when it was learned that one of the jurors was not a United States citizen. Both motions were denied. On March 16, 2006, the judge imposed a mandatory sentence of life in State prison on the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree, a concurrent sentence of four and one-half years in State prison for the unlawful possession of a firearm, and a concurrent sentence of one year in a house of correction for the unlawful possession of ammunition. On March 22, 2010, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30, as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), on three grounds, the first two of which were rejected without a hearing on December 2, 2010,[1] and the third denied on May 3, 2011, after an evidentiary hearing.[2] The denial of this motion was consolidated with the defendant’s direct appeal. In his appeal, the defendant contends that the judge erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on duress, that the inclusion of a noncitizen juror on the jury constituted structural error requiring a new trial, and that his […]
Commonwealth v. Jackson (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-090-14)
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‑11308 COMMONWEALTH vs. DAVID JACKSON. May 21, 2014. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, New trial. Evidence, Cumulative evidence, Impeachment of credibility. Witness, Impeachment. The defendant, David Jackson, was convicted of murder in the first degree, armed robbery, and burglary arising out of events occurring in April, 1990. We affirmed the defendant’s convictions and the denial of his first motion for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 428 Mass. 455 (1998). His second motion for a new trial also was denied, and he was denied leave to appeal, pursuant to the gatekeeper provisions of G. L. c. 278, § 33E.[1] In July, 2009, the defendant filed a third motion for a new trial, and a Superior Court judge who was not the trial judge ordered the Commonwealth to provide additional discovery. Thereafter, the judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Less than one month later, on April 13, 2011, the defendant filed a gatekeeper petition for leave to appeal, pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. A single justice of this court allowed the appeal to proceed. Background. According to the evidence at trial, a key Commonwealth witness, Steven Olbinsky, was present on the night of the crimes, directed the defendant to the location where they occurred, and witnessed him loading a weapon before prying opening the front door at that location. Commonwealth v. Jackson, supra at 456-457. Olbinsky left before any violence occurred, but was indicted for the same crimes. Id. at 458. The record shows that the defendant’s counsel sought to impeach Olbinsky in myriad ways, which we need not detail here. In summary, however, he elicited testimony that Olbinsky also faced murder charges for the same killing; that there were some discrepancies between the statements Olbinsky made to police in July, 1990, and his trial testimony; and that, at the time he made those statements, he was facing unrelated charges in Massachusetts. Although defense counsel additionally sought to introduce evidence of drug charges pending against Olbinsky in Oregon, the evidence was excluded on the ground that the charges were brought long after Olbinsky made his original statements to the police, and his trial testimony had not deviated from his original statements “in any substantial and material way.” See Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755, 762 (1979). Olbinsky additionally testified […]
Commonwealth v. Jackson (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-059-13)
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‑11319 COMMONWEALTH vs. KIIYAN JACKSON. Suffolk. December 6, 2012. ‑ April 5, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Controlled Substances. Arrest. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Arrest, Probable cause. Search and Seizure, Probable cause, Arrest, Search incident to lawful arrest, Fruits of illegal arrest. Evidence, Result of illegal search. Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on September 20, 2010. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Robert E. Baylor, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by him. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Botsford, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the case was reported by her to the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Ilse Nehring for the defendant. Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. After police officers observed the defendant sharing what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette with two others on a park bench, they seized the cigarette and conducted a warrantless search of the defendant’s person and backpack. In the backpack, they discovered a substance resembling marijuana packaged in small plastic bags, with a total weight of less than one ounce. The defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a class D substance (marijuana) with intent to distribute, G. L. c. 94C, § 32C (a), and a corresponding drug violation in or near a school or park, G. L. c. 94C, § 32J. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his person and backpack, contending that the search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; arts. 12 and 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights; and G. L. c. 276, § 1. After an evidentiary hearing, a judge in the Boston Municipal Court denied the motion, and also denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration. A single justice of this court allowed the defendant’s application for leave to file an interlocutory appeal in the Appeals Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (a) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996). We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We conclude that the […]