Posts tagged "McGee"

Commonwealth v. McGee (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-114-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11209   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JEFFREY McGEE. Middlesex.     March 7, 2014.  –  July 1, 2014.   Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide.  Evidence, Demonstration, Present recollection refreshed, Intent, State of mind.  Intent.  Witness, Refreshment of recollection.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, State of mind.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 3, 2008.   The cases were tried before Kathe M. Tuttman, J.     Eric S. Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for the defendant. Hallie White Speight, Assistant District Attorney (Katherine B. Folger, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.     LENK, J.  The defendant appeals from his conviction of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation.[1]  On November 20, 2007, the defendant choked and stabbed his wife to death in their apartment; the killing was witnessed by the couple’s three and one-half year old son.  The defendant did not dispute that he had killed his wife, asserting only that he had done so in the heat of passion and had not premeditated the act.  On appeal, the defendant raises two issues.  First, he contends that the trial judge erred in allowing the defendant’s son to demonstrate, on a couch in the court room, the position in which his mother was lying as the defendant was choking her.  Second, he objects to a ruling prohibiting him from using a police report to refresh the recollection of a witness regarding a sexual overture made by the victim. For the reasons set forth below, we discern no error and affirm the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree.  After a review of the entire record pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, we decline to exercise our power to reduce the defendant’s conviction to a lesser degree of guilt or to order a new trial. 1.  Background.  a.  Facts.  We recite the facts as the jury could have found them, reserving some details for later discussion. i.  Defendant’s relationship with the victim.  The defendant and the victim, Christine McGee,[2] met while the defendant was a singer in a rock and roll band dedicated to performing music from the 1980s, which Christine enjoyed.[3]  At that time, the defendant looked like what Margaret Barone, a longtime friend of the defendant and a close friend of Christine, described as an […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - July 2, 2014 at 3:22 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Commonwealth v. McGee (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-022-14)

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‑09715   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  RICKY D. McGEE.     Suffolk.     October 11, 2013.  ‑  February 12, 2014. Present:  Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.     Homicide.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, New trial, Discovery, Instructions to jury, Request for jury instructions.  Evidence, Exculpatory, Ballistician’s certificate, Prior misconduct, Credibility of witness, Relevancy and materiality, Photograph.  Witness, Intimidation, Credibility.  Intimidation of Witness.  Firearms.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 25, 1997.   The cases were tried before Regina L. Quinlan, J., and motions for a new trial, filed on November 10, 1998, and April 14, 2011, were heard by her.     David A.F. Lewis for the defendant. Amanda Teo, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     DUFFLY, J.  On October 20, 1998, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, G. L. c. 265, § 1, in the shooting death of Getasetegn Yalew.[1]  The defendant’s appeal from his convictions and his appeal from the denial of his first motion for a new trial were stayed pending determination of his second motion for a new trial; that motion was denied, as was the defendant’s motion for reconsideration and his request for posttrial discovery.  These appeals were consolidated and are now before us. The defendant argues that his new trial motions should have been allowed because of newly discovered evidence, and that it was an abuse of discretion to deny his requests for posttrial discovery.  The defendant maintains further that the trial judge erred in failing to give a specific instruction on witness credibility, and made errors in certain evidentiary rulings.  He also seeks relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We conclude that none of the defendant’s claims of error requires reversal, and find no basis to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to order a new trial.  Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. Facts.  We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving mention of certain facts for our discussion of the issues.  Some time between 2:16 A.M. and 2:40 A.M. on April 16, 1997, the victim, a store clerk at a convenience store in the Fenway section of Boston, was shot in the back of the head with a .38 caliber revolver.  The victim, […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - February 12, 2014 at 9:44 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,