Commonwealth v. Montrond (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-081-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10834 COMMONWEALTH vs. AMARAL MONTROND. Plymouth. February 14, 2017. – May 17, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Confrontation of witnesses. Intoxication. Evidence, Intoxication, Prior misconduct, Relevancy and materiality, Expert opinion. Witness, Expert. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Assistance of counsel, Confrontation of witnesses. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 16, 2007. The cases were tried before Paul E. Troy, J.; a motion for a new trial, filed on July 12, 2012, and a motion for postconviction discovery, filed on May 2, 2013, were considered by him, and following remand by this court, the motion for a new trial was heard by Thomas F. McGuire, Jr., J. Leslie W. O’Brien for the defendant. Laurie Yeshulas, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. LENK, J. The defendant appeals from his conviction of murder in the first degree[1] on a theory of deliberate premeditation in the shooting death of Carlita Chaney on August 16, 2007, and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. The defendant’s consolidated appeal from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial first came before this court in November, 2014, when, following oral argument, we stayed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Superior Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim and the location of certain telephone records. After that hearing, the defendant renewed his motion for a new trial, which the judge denied. On appeal, the defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective, and that his right of confrontation pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was violated by virtue of certain testimony from the Commonwealth’s medical examiner. He also contends that both motion judges erroneously denied his motion for a new trial. Finally, the defendant asks that we exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the degree of guilt. We conclude that there was no error requiring reversal, and discern no reason to exercise our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions. Background. a. Facts. Based on the evidence at trial, the jury could have found the following. The defendant and the […]