Commonwealth v. Scott (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-166-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-11097 COMMONWEALTH vs. KENSTON SCOTT. Plymouth. March 2, 2015. – September 24, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Felony-Murder Rule. Armed Home Invasion. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Postconviction relief, Interlocutory appeal, Double jeopardy. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 30, 2007. The cases were tried before Richard J. Chin, J., and a motion for postconviction relief, filed on June 5, 2012, was heard by him. Chauncey B. Wood for the defendant. Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. The only issue that is properly before us in this interlocutory appeal, as we shall explain below, is whether the evidence at the defendant’s trial was sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty of murder in the first degree based on a theory of felony‑murder, with armed home invasion as the predicate felony. Specifically, the question is whether the Commonwealth presented evidence that would warrant a finding that the defendant committed two separate assaults, one to support a conviction of armed home invasion and a separate and distinct assault that constituted the homicide. In the absence of proof of two independent assaults, the evidence would not support a conviction of felony‑murder based on an armed home invasion. We hold that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of two assaults. Procedural history. The defendant was tried and convicted in the Superior Court, in 2010, on charges (one count each) of murder in the first degree, armed home invasion, and unlicensed carrying of a firearm.[1] The murder conviction was based on a theory of felony-murder, with armed home invasion as the predicate felony.[2] The defendant was sentenced to the mandatory term of life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder, and a concurrent term of from four and one-half to five years for the firearm offense. The armed home invasion indictment was dismissed as duplicative.[3] The defendant’s appeal from his convictions was entered directly in this court in November, 2011, in accordance with G. L. c. 278, § 33E. In June, 2012, while his appeal was pending, he filed in this court a “motion for postconviction relief” that we remanded to the Superior Court for consideration. His motion was focused entirely on the murder conviction and […]
Commonwealth v. Scott (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-204-14)
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 SJC-11303 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT SCOTT.[1] Suffolk. September 5, 2014. – December 26, 2014. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Evidence, Third-party culprit. Constitutional Law, Fair trial. Due Process of Law, Fair trial. Fair Trial. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Fair trial, Argument by prosecutor, Jury and jurors, Substitution of alternate juror, Question by jury, Instructions to jury. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 19, 2008. The case was tried before Peter M. Lauriat, J. Ruth Greenberg for the defendant. Paul B. Linn, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. LENK, J. In December, 1984, a young woman was found dead, her body badly beaten, in a vacant lot in Boston. Twenty-three years later, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was extracted from samples taken from the victim’s body and clothing soon after her death and run through a national computerized database. A match was found with the defendant’s DNA. The defendant was tried for murder in the first degree. His defense at trial was that he had had consensual sex with the victim but had not been the killer. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on theories of premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder. The defendant appeals from his conviction. The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that other errors in the proceedings require a new trial. These include the judge’s exclusion of evidence purported, by the defendant, to show that police had investigated the case inadequately or that the crime might have been committed by a third party; the prosecutor’s remarks, in his closing argument, that there had been no evidence that the victim had engaged in “risky behavior”; and the judge’s instruction to the jury, after one original juror had been discharged, that an alternate juror should get “up to speed” about a question that had been posed by the jury and answered by the judge. Having reviewed the entire record pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, we discern no error requiring reversal, and no cause to exercise our authority to reduce the defendant’s conviction to a lesser degree of guilt or to order a new trial. 1. Facts. We summarize the facts the jury could have found, reserving certain details for later […]
Commonwealth v. Scott (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-002-15)
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; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 13-P-1232 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. LANNY STEED SCOTT. No. 13-P-1232. Hampden. October 9, 2014. – January 5, 2015. Present: Graham, Brown, & Sullivan, JJ. Practice, Criminal, Double jeopardy, Sentence, Probation. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 17, 2007. Following review by this court, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 (2011), and the Supreme Judicial Court, 464 Mass. 355 (2013), resentencing proceedings were heard by John S. Ferrara, J. Michael J. Fellows for the defendant. Dianne M. Dillon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. SULLIVAN, J. The defendant, Lanny Steed Scott, was convicted on all charges in a five-count indictment charging kidnapping, G. L. c. 265, § 26 (Count 1); assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B(b) (Count 2); assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A (Count 3); assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, G. L. c. 265, § 13A(b)(i) (Count 4); and malicious destruction of property, G. L. c. 266, § 127 (Count 5). On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court determined there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on Count 4, assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, and ordered that judgment enter for the defendant on that count.[1] The case was remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts of the indictment. See Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355, 364 (2013). At resentencing, the judge (who was not the trial judge) retained the original sentences on Counts 1, 3, and 5. On Count 2, for which the defendant had already completed his original sentence of from two to five years in State prison concurrent with Count 1 (see Appendix), the judge imposed a five-year term of probation from and after the committed sentence in Count 1. The defendant maintains that this aspect of the resentencing violated principles of double jeopardy and due process. See Commonwealth v. Cumming, 466 Mass. 467 (2013) (Cumming). Compare Commonwealth v. Leggett, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 730 (2012) (Leggett). We vacatethe sentences, and remand for resentencing. Background. The defendant was originally sentenced on December 20, 2007, to a period of from eight to ten years in State prison on Count 1, the kidnapping conviction, and to a period of two to five years in State prison on Count 4, the since-vacated conviction, to run on and after the sentence on Count 1.[2] He was sentenced to concurrent terms […]
Commonwealth v. Scott (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-033-14)
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 SJC‑11465 COMMONWEALTH vs. RAKIM D. SCOTT. Suffolk. October 10, 2013. ‑ March 5, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Controlled Substances. Constitutional Law, Plea, Conduct of government agents. Due Process of Law, Plea, Disclosure of evidence, Presumption. Practice, Criminal, Admission to sufficient facts to warrant finding, Plea, New trial, Conduct of government agents, Disclosure of evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof. Evidence, Guilty plea, Certificate of drug analysis, Exculpatory, Disclosure of evidence, Presumptions and burden of proof. Complaint received and sworn to in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department on April 5, 2011. A motion to vacate a plea of guilty or admission to sufficient facts was heard by Michael J. Coyne, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Vincent J. DeMore, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Amy M. Belger for the defendant. Emma A. Andersson & Ezekiel R. Edwards, of New York; Emily A. Cardy & Eric Brandt, Committee for Public Counsel Services; & Matthew R. Segal & Elizabeth A. Lunt, for Committee for Public Counsel Services & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. SPINA, J. In this case, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his admission to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 Mass. 1501 (2001), was granted by a judge in the Boston Municipal Court.[1] The Commonwealth appealed, and we granted the Commonwealth’s application for direct appellate review.[2] This case is one of four in this posture before us as a result of the ongoing investigation into the William A. Hinton State Laboratory Institute in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston, and specifically, the conduct of Annie Dookhan, an individual who was employed as a chemist in the forensic drug laboratory (Hinton drug lab or lab) from 2003 until 2012. See Commonwealth v. Torres, post (2014); Commonwealth v. Bjork, post (2014); Commonwealth v. Davila, post (2014). Among other things, that investigation led to the indictment of Dookhan on multiple counts of evidence tampering and obstruction of justice as well as on at least one count of perjury and one count of falsely claiming to hold a graduate degree, all relating to her handling and testing of samples […]
Should Scott Brown Run for Senate in NH?
Former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) dropped a bombshell on Thursday night when he told reporters following a speech in Nashua that he wouldn’t rule out a run for Senate in New Hampshire. “I’m not going to rule out anything right now,” he said. Brown, who represented Massachusetts in the Senate from 2009 to 2012, owns a vacation home in Rye, N.H., so it’s not that far fetched. His announcement drew an immediate response from Democrats, who flooded the Twitterverse with comments and jokes about the former Massachusetts Senator’s prospects should he choose to take on incumbent Jeanne Shaheen in 2014. What do you think? Should Scott Brown run for Senate in New Hampshire in 2014? Or should he stay in Massachusetts? Tell us in our comments section below. South End Patch
Should Scott Brown Run for Governor?
Results of a UMass Lowell/Boston Herald poll this week show former Senator Scott Brown is more popular than he was when he lost his re-election bid last fall and is in a strong position to run for governor in 2014. The independent, nonpartisan poll surveyed 600 Massachusetts registered voters between Saturday, March 2 and Tuesday, March 5. With regard to Brown, the poll – which asked voters for their opinions on whether they would vote for Brown if he runs for governor – showed he has considerable bipartisan support, with 32.7 percent saying they are very likely to vote for him and 26 percent somewhat likely. Results showed that Brown, who garnered support of 92.2 percent of Republicans polled and 36.7 percent of Democrats, had more name recognition than other possible candidates, including Charlie Baker (67.2 percent combined said they had no opinion/never heard of Baker), former Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (58.4 percent combined no opinion/never heard of) and state Treasurer Steve Grossman (79.5 percent no opinion/never heard of). So tell us, what do you think? Would you vote for Scott Brown for governor? Or is there another potential candidate out there who you think would be a better fit for the seat? Tell us in the comments below. South End Patch
Commonwealth v. Scott (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-025-13)
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‑11094 COMMONWEALTH vs. LANNY STEED SCOTT. Hampden. October 2, 2012. ‑ February 8, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Assault and Battery. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Evidence, Medical record, Expert opinion. Witness, Expert. Words, “Impairment.” Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on January 17, 2007. The case was tried before Peter A. Velis, J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Michael J. Fellows for the defendant. Dianne M. Dillon, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. DUFFLY, J. Based on the confinement of and physical assault on his girl friend in her apartment, the defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of kidnapping, G. L. c. 265, § 26; assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b); assault and battery causing serious bodily injury, G. L. c. 265, § 13A (b) (i); assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, § 13A (a); and malicious destruction of property, G. L. c. 266, § 127. The defendant appealed, and the Appeals Court affirmed his convictions in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28. Commonwealth v. Scott, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 (2011). We granted the defendant’s application for further appellate review, limiting our review to the defendant’s conviction of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury. The sole issue before us is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish “serious bodily injury” within the meaning of G. L. c. 265, § 13A (b) (i) (statute).[1] Because we conclude that the evidence, which consisted primarily of medical records not explained by any expert witness, would not have permitted a rational jury to find that the victim suffered “serious bodily injury” resulting in “impairment of” an organ, the defendant’s conviction of assault and battery causing serious bodily injury cannot stand. Background. The jury could have found the following. In October, 2006, the victim and the defendant, who had two children, were no longer living together, but continued to maintain regular contact. On October 23, 2006, at approximately 11:30 P.M., the defendant knocked on the victim’s door and she let him into the apartment. The defendant accused her of being involved with another man. When the victim admitted as much, the defendant punched her in the face and the victim fell to the […]
Categories: News Tags: boston, democratic, edward, elizabeth, major, markey, massachusetts, scott, warren
Scott Brown Will Not Run for U.S. Senate
Scott Brown ended speculation Friday afternoon as to whether he would run for U.S. Senate, announcing that he is not entering the race for the seat left vacant by John Kerry’s confirmation to the post of Secretary of State. Two Democratic political opponents – Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston) and Congressman Edward Markey (D-Malden) – will face off in the April 30 primary with the special election set for June 25. There are currently no Republican candidates in the race. Markey, who represents the 5th Congressional District, kicked off his campaign in December. Lynch launched his bid with a formal announcement Thursday afternoon. Lynch represents the 8th Congressional District. With Brown out of the running, what Republican would you like to see run for the seat? Leave your thoughts in the comment field below. South End Patch