Commonwealth v. Hardy (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-043-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑10874 COMMONWEALTH vs. JEFFREY HARDY. Middlesex. November 8, 2012. ‑ March 15, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Constitutional Law, Public trial, Assistance of counsel, Jury. Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Argument by prosecutor, Capital case, Instructions to jury, Witness, New trial. Witness, Cross‑examination. Homicide. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 23, 1994. Following review by this court, 431 Mass. 387 (2000), a motion for a new trial, filed on November 28, 2008, was considered by Elizabeth M. Fahey, J. A request for leave to appeal was allowed by Spina, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk. Robert L. Sheketoff for the defendant. Jessica Langsam, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. In 1995, the defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of murder in the first degree. In his direct appeal to this court, we affirmed the conviction, denied relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 431 Mass. 387 (2000) (Hardy). In 2008, the defendant filed a second motion for a new trial, alleging his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain alleged errors at trial and on direct appeal.[1] A judge of the Superior Court (who was not the trial judge) denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The defendant sought leave to appeal from the denial of his motion by a petition to a single justice of this court pursuant to the “gatekeeper” provision of G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and the single justice allowed the petition. We affirm the denial of the defendant’s second motion for a new trial. Background. The body of Thomas Moran was discovered in a Medford park at approximately 5:30 A.M. on April 28, 1994. Moran had suffered seventy-nine stab wounds and a gunshot wound to the face. A grand jury returned an indictment charging the defendant with Moran’s murder, and after a trial lasting over three weeks, the defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree by reason of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. As stated, we affirmed the defendant’s conviction, affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and denied […]