Commonwealth v. Mason (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-030-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 11‑P‑1662 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. TREVON MASON. No. 11‑P‑1662. Suffolk. October 4, 2013. ‑ March 20, 2014. Present: Cypher, Katzmann, & Maldonado, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Challenge to jurors, Jury and jurors. Jury and Jurors. Resisting Arrest. Complaint received and sworn to in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on September 9, 2008. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Lawrence E. McCormick, J., and the case was tried before Robert E. Baylor, J. Patricia A. DeJuneas for the defendant. Paul B. Linn, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. CYPHER, J. The defendant, Trevon Mason, was charged with armed robbery, possession of a firearm without a firearm identification card, assault by means of a dangerous weapon, two counts of assault and battery on a police officer, and resisting arrest. Before trial, the Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi of the charge of armed robbery, and a judge dismissed the charge of possession of a firearm without an identification card. The Commonwealth elected not to go forward on the charge of assault by means of a dangerous weapon on the day trial began. At the close of the Commonwealth’s case, the judge allowed the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty on one of the two charges of assault and battery on a police officer. The jury acquitted the defendant of the other count of assault and battery on a police officer. The defendant was convicted of resisting arrest. The defendant appeals, claiming error in (1) the Commonwealth’s exercise of peremptory challenges of prospective jurors who belong to a discrete racial group; (2) the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence; and (3) the admission at trial of evidence of irrelevant and prejudicial prearrest conduct of the defendant. It is not necessary to provide a detailed recitation of the facts of the underlying charges. We affirm. The jury empanelment. During voir dire, juror no. 8 informed the court that he felt that he had been mistreated during an arrest, but that he could be fair and impartial. He also indicated that he had graduated from the Maine police academy in June, 2010. Juror no. 22 informed the court during voir dire that she had a son who was currently incarcerated on a fifteen-year […]