Posts tagged "Shippee"

Commonwealth v. Shippee (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-067-13)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;       11‑P‑1864                                       Appeals Court   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  CRAIG SHIPPEE.     No. 11‑P‑1864. Worcester.     February 4, 2013.  ‑  May 31, 2013. Present:  Vuono, Rubin, & Sullivan, JJ.     Indecent Assault and Battery.  Armed Assault with Intent to Murder.  Assault with Intent to Maim.  Assault by Means of a Dangerous Weapon.  Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Indictment, Duplicative convictions, Assistance of counsel.  Evidence, Relevancy and materiality.       Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 25, 2008.   The cases were tried before John S. McCann, J.     Michael J. Hickson for the defendant. Donna‑Marie Haran, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     SULLIVAN, J.  The charges in this case arose from events which occurred on the evening of September 12, 2008, in an abandoned building on Main Street in Worcester.  The defendant was convicted of indecent assault and battery on a woman named Anne,[1] who died later that night in a fire that consumed the building.  He was also convicted of armed assault with intent to kill (as a lesser included offense of armed assault with intent to murder), assault with intent to maim, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon on a second occupant of the building, Raul Robles Santiago.  On appeal, the defendant contends that (1) the judge erred by failing to instruct, sua sponte, that the Commonwealth was required to prove that Anne was alive at the time the defendant was alleged to have committed an indecent assault and battery, (2) the judge erred in allowing the introduction of prejudicial “sympathy” evidence concerning Anne’s life and character, (3) the judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defendant’s right to use deadly force against Santiago, (4) an indictment was defective, (5) the conviction of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon was duplicative of the conviction of assault with intent to maim, and (6) counsel was ineffective.  We affirm. Indecent assault and battery instruction.  The defendant contends that the failure of the judge to instruct the jury, sua sponte, that the victim must be alive at the time of an indecent assault and battery in order to convict under G. L. c. 265, § 13H, warrants reversal of that conviction.  At trial, the defendant’s theory was that while he was with her, Anne was alive, […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 1, 2013 at 1:15 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,