Posts tagged "1007216"

Commonwealth v. Neves (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-072-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   SJC-11173   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  ADILSON F. NEVES.       Plymouth.     October 9, 2015. – May 25, 2016.   Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ.     Homicide.  Felony-Murder Rule.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of constitutional rights, Voluntariness of statement.  Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Testimony before grand jury.  Grand Jury.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Admissions and confessions, Waiver, Voluntariness of statement, Grand jury proceedings, Transcript of testimony before grand jury, Sequestration of witnesses, Striking of testimony, Request for jury instructions.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 15, 2008.   A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Christine M. Roach, J., and the case was tried before Jeffrey A. Locke, J.     Jeffrey L. Baler for the defendant. Gail M. McKenna, Assistant District Attorney (Audrey Anderson, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.     LENK, J.  The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of murder in the first degree on a theory of felony-murder in the 2008 shooting death of Edward Conley, a Brockton taxicab driver.  Before us is the defendant’s appeal from his conviction.  The defendant asserts error in four respects:  (1) the failure to suppress statements later admitted in evidence that were made involuntarily to police, in violation of his Miranda rights, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445 (1966) (Miranda); (2) the introduction over objection of a witness’s grand jury testimony after the witness claimed a loss of memory; (3) the failure to strike, upon request, another witness’s testimony after learning that he had violated a sequestration order; and (4) the failure to give a requested instruction on involuntary manslaughter.  The defendant also seeks relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  While we conclude that some of the defendant’s statements to police were not made voluntarily and should not have been admitted, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  We also conclude that the judge’s rulings with respect to the contested witness testimony and the instruction on involuntary manslaughter were not in error.  Having reviewed the entire record, we affirm the conviction and discern no reason to exercise our authority to grant extraordinary relief. 1.  Factual background.  We recite the facts the jury could have found, reserving certain details for later discussion.  In early February, 2008, the defendant discussed […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 25, 2016 at 6:45 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,