Commonwealth v. Lacoy (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-143-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-1950 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. JOHN LACOY. No. 13-P-1950. Suffolk. February 1, 2016. – October 6, 2016. Present: Trainor, Meade, & Sullivan, JJ. Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Challenge to jurors, Jury and jurors, Assistance of counsel, Opening statement, Instructions to jury. Jury and Jurors. Evidence, Prior misconduct. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 29, 2011. The case was tried before Raymond J. Brassard, J. Neil L. Fishman for the defendant. Matthew T. Sears, Assistant District Attorney (Ursula A. Knight, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. SULLIVAN, J. After a jury trial, the defendant, John Lacoy, was convicted of murder in the second degree. See G. L. c. 265, § 1. On appeal, he contends that (1) the Commonwealth’s exercise of two of its peremptory challenges violated art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution; (2) trial counsel was ineffective; (3) prior bad acts were admitted in error; and (4) the judge erred by declining to instruct the jury on sudden combat theory of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. We affirm. Background. We recite the facts as the jury could have found them, noting facts that are disputed, and reserving certain details for our analysis of the issues raised on appeal. The defendant and the victim, Casey Taylor, met in a homeless shelter. After the defendant found an apartment with two other men, Taylor stayed with him overnight from time to time. The landlord[1] eventually told the defendant that Taylor was not to come to the house any more. The defendant did not allow Taylor to leave the bedroom or make noise on those nights when the landlord was at home, and required Taylor to urinate in a bottle. Both men were alcoholics. Over the course of the two years that they knew each other, Taylor sought out the defendant after the defendant’s Social Security disability check had arrived. Taylor wanted money to purchase alcohol. When the defendant received his disability check, the two men were seen on the back porch of the apartment with large bottles of vodka for days at a time. When the alcohol was gone, Taylor left. The defendant told friends that he was interested in Taylor sexually, even though Taylor […]