Posts tagged "1018415"

Commonwealth v. Cadet (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-184-15)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10505   COMMONWEALTH  vs.  PIERRE P. CADET.       Plymouth.     April 10, 2015. – November 18, 2015.     Present:  Gants, C.J., Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide.  Constitutional Law, Public trial, Assistance of counsel.  Practice, Criminal, New trial, Public trial, Assistance of counsel, Argument by prosecutor, Hearsay, Instructions to jury, Capital case.  Evidence, Hearsay, State of mind.  Protective Order.  Self-Defense.       Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 17, 2004.   The case was tried before by Frank M. Gaziano, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on March 28, 2013, was heard by him.     James M. Doyle for the defendant. Mary Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.     DUFFLY, J.  In May, 2007, the defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty in the stabbing death of his girl friend, Betina Francois.  At trial, the defendant did not contest that he had stabbed the victim, but argued that he had done so in self-defense, after she became enraged and attacked him with two knives.  In March, 2013, while his appeal from his conviction was pending, the defendant filed in this court a motion for a new trial; the appeal was stayed, and the motion was remanded to the Superior Court.  The defendant’s appeal from the denial of that motion was consolidated with his direct appeal. We conclude that, although there were improprieties in the prosecutor’s conduct at trial, including in his cross-examination of the defendant and in his closing argument, they did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.  Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial.  Having conducted a thorough review pursuant to our duty under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, we discern no reason to reduce the verdict or to order a new trial. Background.  We recite some of the facts that the jury could have found, reserving additional facts for discussion of the issues raised. 1.  Commonwealth’s case.  At the time of the victim’s death in late September, 2004, she and the defendant had been involved in a romantic relationship for three years.  They had purchased a triple-decker house in Brockton in 2002, and lived there in the first-floor […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 18, 2015 at 6:08 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,