Commonwealth v. Jules (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-034-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑10248 COMMONWEALTH vs. JEAN CLAUDE JULES. Plymouth. November 9, 2012. ‑ March 7, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ. Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, New trial, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of confession, Interpreter, Waiver, Assistance of counsel, Witness, Capital case. Constitutional Law, Voluntariness of statement, Assistance of counsel, Identification, Witness, Admissions and confessions, Identification. Due Process of Law. Waiver. Interpreter. Identification. Witness. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 3, 2003. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Joseph M. Walker, III, J.; the case was tried before Richard J. Chin, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on April 13, 2010, was heard by him. Stephen Paul Maidman for the defendant. Robert C. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. IRELAND, C.J. On February 16, 2007, a jury convicted the defendant, Jean Claude Jules, of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.[1] Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant argues error in the denial of his motion to suppress statements and motion for a new trial. He also seeks relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We affirm the defendant’s conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial, and discern no basis to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Facts. Based on the Commonwealth’s evidence, the jury could have found the following. The defendant and the victim lived together in the victim’s apartment in Brockton. They both were from Haiti, and the defendant planned to marry the victim and remain in the United States. The victim, however, wanted to end their relationship. She informed a friend from work that she was buying a new house and was not taking the defendant with her. During the week prior to her death, the victim and the defendant argued. On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, the defendant “caught” the victim on the telephone with “somebody.” The defendant told a friend that he believed that the victim was “having an affair.” The victim told the defendant that he needed to move out of her apartment and, if he did not, she would move and leave him there. The two argued throughout the day, and […]