Posts tagged "1008113"

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NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;     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 […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 15, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,