Commonwealth v. Vargas (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-138-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10075 COMMONWEALTH vs. PABLO VARGAS. Hampden. March 11, 2016. – August 30, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Hines, JJ.[1] Homicide. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver of constitutional rights, Assistance of counsel, Public trial. Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel, Interpreter. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Hearsay. Waiver. Telephone. Defense of Others. Self-Defense. Interpreter. Practice, Criminal, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver, Assistance of counsel, Instructions to jury, Hearsay, Motion to suppress, New trial, Interpreter, Public trial, Capital case. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 2, 2004. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Daniel A. Ford, J.; the case was tried before Francis R. Fecteau, J.; and a motion for a new trial, filed on December 23, 2013, was heard by C. Jeffrey Kinder, J., and a motion for reconsideration was also heard by him. John M. Thompson for the defendant. Katherine E. McMahon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. CORDY, J. There is no dispute that on the night of September 23, 2004, the victim, Tremayne King, was killed by the defendant, Pablo Vargas. The defendant stabbed the victim eight times during an altercation at the residence of the victim’s estranged wife, Yanira Rodriguez, who was the defendant’s girl friend. At trial, the defendant sought to rebut the charge of murder in the first degree on the theory of self-defense, alleging that he fought and killed the victim because he feared for his life. On May 24, 2006, a Hampden County jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity and cruelty, rejecting the Commonwealth’s alternative theory of premeditation. In December, 2013, the defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, as was his motion for reconsideration thereof. On appeal from his conviction and from the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant claims that (1) his statement made during police questioning shortly after the altercation should have been suppressed; (2) the trial judge erred in excluding relevant so-called Adjutant evidence of the victim’s history of violence, see Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649, 664 (2005); (3) the judge erred in admitting certain testimony concerning the […]
Commonwealth v. Vargas (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-113-16)
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-11895 COMMONWEALTH vs. DANNY VARGAS. Essex. November 2, 2015. – August 3, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.[1] Marijuana. Practice, Criminal, Probation, Revocation of probation, Assistance of counsel. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 19, 2012. A proceeding for revocation of probation was heard by Richard E. Welch, III, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Michael D. Cutler for the defendant. Philip A. Mallard, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Eva G. Jellison & David J. Nathanson, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. David A.F. Lewis, Sarah Heaton Concannon, & Robyn R. Schwartz, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. HINES, J. In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the medical marijuana law, St. 2012, c. 369 (act),[2] establishing immunity for the medical use of marijuana, applies in a probation surrender proceeding based on the use of marijuana, purportedly for medical purposes. The issue arises from a judge’s order finding the defendant, who claimed immunity under the act, in violation of probation for the use of marijuana, terminating the probation and imposing a sentence to State prison. The defendant challenges the disposition and seeks a new probation surrender hearing, arguing that the sentence violates his right, as a qualifying patient under the act, to the medical use of marijuana without adverse legal consequences. He also argues that counsel was ineffective in failing to defend the probation surrender on this ground. The Commonwealth counters that the court permissibly conditioned the defendant’s probation on the prohibition of any nonprescription controlled substance, and properly terminated probation for failure to comply with this and other conditions. The Commonwealth also argues that counsel was not ineffective for failing to assert the immunity provision of the act where defense counsel’s decision to forgo a medical marijuana defense in favor of a plea for leniency was not manifestly unreasonable. We granted the defendant’s application for direct appellate review. We conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, the judge committed no error in finding the defendant in violation of his probation and that, although counsel was ineffective in […]