Commonwealth v. Kolenovic (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-166-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-08047 COMMONWEALTH vs. ENEZ KOLENOVIC. Hampshire. April 7, 2017. – October 18, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Public trial, Confrontation of witnesses. Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Argument by counsel, Instructions to jury, Admissions and confessions, Argument by prosecutor, Public trial, Confrontation of witnesses, Mistrial, Jury and jurors, Verdict, Capital case. Evidence, Blood alcohol test, Blood sample, Expert opinion, Intoxication. Jury and Jurors. Intoxication. Mental Impairment. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 24, 1996. The case was tried before Mary-Lou Rup, J.; a posttrial motion for reduction of the verdict, filed on March 18, 2003, was heard by her; and, following review by this court, 471 Mass. 664 (2015), a motion for reconsideration was heard by her. Michael R. Schneider for the defendant. Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. BUDD, J. The defendant, Enez Kolenovic, was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty in the death of David Walker. On appeal, the defendant argues error in several areas, including error committed by his trial counsel, the trial judge, and the prosecutor, creating a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. He also asks this court either to remand his case to the Superior Court for renewed consideration of his motion to reduce the verdict, or to grant him relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We affirm the defendant’s conviction and the denial of his motion for a reduced verdict, and decline to grant extraordinary relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background. The evidence presented in the defendant’s trial and the postconviction evidence introduced in his motion for a new trial hearing is summarized in Commonwealth v. Kolenovic (Kolenovic I), 471 Mass. 664 (2015). We provide a condensed version of events as the jury could have found them, reserving some details for discussion. The homicide. The defendant spent much of the day on September 15, 1996, drinking alcohol. Around 9:30 P.M. he went to a bar, which was connected to a restaurant that his family operated. At the bar, the defendant continued to drink, along with Melissa Radigan and John McCrystal. Near 11 P.M., the defendant had a […]
Commonwealth v. Kolenovic (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-101-15)
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-08047 COMMONWEALTH vs. ENEZ KOLENOVIC. Hampshire. December 4, 2014. – June 23, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, New trial, Assistance of counsel. Intoxication. Mental Impairment. Evidence, Intoxication. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 24, 1996. The case was tried before Mary-Lou Rup, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on March 18, 2003, was heard by her. Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Michael R. Schneider for the defendant. HINES, J. On February 2, 1999, a jury convicted the defendant, Enez Kolenovic, of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.[1] The defendant’s conviction stems from the stabbing death of David Walker (victim) during the early morning hours of September 16, 1996, following an altercation between the two in a bar. While the defendant’s appeal to this court was pending, he filed a motion for a new trial arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and error in the jury instructions. We remanded the motion to the Superior Court.[2] The judge, who had been the trial judge, granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Commonwealth appealed. We conclude that the judge erred and reverse the order allowing the motion for a new trial. 1. Background. a. Facts presented at trial. From the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have found the following facts. In the early morning hours of September 16, 1996, the defendant was riding in the back seat of his friend’s vehicle after a day spent consuming alcohol. His friend, John J. McCrystal, was driving; the defendant and another friend, Melissa Radigan, were seated in the back seat, and the victim was sitting directly in front of the defendant in the front passenger seat. The defendant and the victim had had an altercation earlier in the evening. The group was on the way to the defendant’s house to continue drinking when the defendant reached forward and slit the victim’s throat. McCrystal stopped the vehicle, and the defendant got out, opened the front passenger door, and pulled the victim to the ground. The defendant stabbed the victim multiple times while he […]