Commonwealth v. Lewis (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-075-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 16-P-257 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JEFFREY LEWIS. No. 16-P-257. Essex. December 12, 2016. – June 7, 2017. Present: Hanlon, Carhart, & Neyman, JJ.[1] Rape. Assault and Battery. Evidence, First complaint. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 5, 2013. The cases were tried before Joshua I. Wall, J. James P. Vander Salm for the defendant. Catherine Langevin Semel, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HANLON, J. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of four counts of rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22(b), and one count of assault and battery in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A.[2] He appeals, arguing that his convictions should be reversed because evidence was admitted improperly in violation of the first complaint doctrine. See Mass. G. Evid. § 413 (2017). This error, he argues, combined with what he describes as inadequate limiting instructions, resulted in prejudicial error. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Background. The jury could have found the following facts. In September, 2012, the victim met the defendant at a “club” in Lawrence; they had a “whirl wind romance really. He said all the right things, and [she] fell in love with him within a week.” A little more than a month into the relationship, however, things began to change. The defendant began to drink heavily, and, when he was drinking, he became rude and mean to the victim, as well as controlling — particularly in public.[3] The victim would sometimes not see the defendant for days at a time when he was drinking; he would “basically disappear” and she would “end up having to find him.” During this time, the victim was living in North Andover with her three children, and the defendant was living on a friend’s couch. Despite the defendant’s behavior when he was drinking, their relationship continued because, according to the victim, she was in love with him and he did not behave that way all the time. January 1, 2013, rape. By New Year’s Eve, 2012, the relationship between the victim and the defendant was “rocky,” but they had made plans to go out and celebrate that evening. The victim picked up the defendant from work at approximately 4:00 P.M. and left him at […]
Commonwealth v. Lewis (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-077-14)
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‑11500 COMMONWEALTH vs. KERRON RANDELL LEWIS.[1] May 6, 2014. Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Practice, Criminal, Discovery. Evidence, Certificate of drug analysis. Controlled Substances. The Commonwealth appeals from the judgment of a single justice of this court denying its petition pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm. Kerron Randell Lewis has been charged with distribution of a class B substance, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32A; and possession with intent to distribute a class B substance, in violation of G. L. c. 94C, § 32A. He filed a motion in the Boston Municipal Court seeking pretrial discovery, pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 14. After multiple hearings, the Commonwealth was ordered to provide certain discovery to Lewis, including copies of maintenance and calibration records for the machines used for weighing and analyzing the substance seized from him. The Commonwealth’s G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition sought relief from that order. The single justice exercised her discretion to consider the merits. “A single justice, in his or her discretion, may also properly decline to employ the court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence where exceptional circumstances are not present . . . .” Commonwealth v. Elias, 463 Mass. 1015, 1016 n.2 (2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Narea, 454 Mass. 1003, 1004 n.1 (2009) (“[n]o party, including the Commonwealth, should expect that the court will exercise its extraordinary power of general superintendence lightly”). See Commonwealth v. Snow, 456 Mass. 1019, 1019-1020 (2010); Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 456 Mass. 1012, 1012 n.1 (2010). We conclude that the single justice did not err or abuse her discretion in denying relief. The Commonwealth has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief on the substantive merits of its petition. On appeal, the Commonwealth contends that the information requested is not properly the subject of automatic discovery under Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 because it is not a “report of a scientific test or experiment.” Mass. R. Crim. P. 14 (a) (1) (A) (vii), as amended, 444 Mass. 1501 (2005). Alternatively, it argues, it satisfied its automatic discovery obligations by making the information available to the defendant for inspection and copying. Regardless of whether any of the requested information properly was the subject of automatic discovery under rule 14 (a) (1), “[d]iscovery of items not included in the automatic discovery regime remains subject to the court’s discretion, and […]
Commonwealth v. Lewis (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-081-13)
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‑11183 COMMONWEALTH vs. JOSHUA LEWIS. Norfolk. January 8, 2013. ‑ May 14, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ. Armed Assault with Intent to Murder. Firearms. Intent. Evidence, Intent, Admissions and confessions. Practice, Criminal, Admissions and confessions, Argument by prosecutor, Instructions to jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 28, 2006. The cases were tried before Barbara A. Dortch‑Okara, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Peter M. Onek, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Marguerite T. Grant, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. SPINA, J. The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to murder, carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, and possession of a firearm while not in possession of a firearms identification card. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 119 (2012). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review. He alleges error in (1) the denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty as to the charge of assault with intent to murder, (2) the admission of an ambiguous statement he made after being shot by police, (3) the closing argument by the prosecutor, and (4) the judge’s instruction on the charge of assault with intent to murder. We reverse the convictions because of the prosecutor’s improper closing argument, and remand the matter for a new trial as to all charges. 1. Facts. The jury could have found the following facts. On July 26, 2006, State Troopers George Demos and Gregory Keane, both on duty, planned to meet at a restaurant in Stoughton at 6:30 P.M. for a break. Keane, a canine unit officer, arrived first with his dog. He waited in his cruiser for Demos. As Demos was approaching the restaurant in his cruiser, three occupants in a Nissan Maxima automobile ahead of him were looking back at him and making “excited” movements. The Maxima turned abruptly into the restaurant’s parking lot without signaling. The Maxima passed Keane, who noticed that the inspection sticker depicted an “R,” indicating the car had failed its last inspection. The […]