 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Squailia3/2/1999
Plymouth.
February 2, 1999.
Evidence, Relevancy and materiality, Cross-examination, Prior misconduct, State of mind, Cumulative evidence. Intent. Practice, Criminal, Argument by prosecutor, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel, Capital case. Homicide. Malice.
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 21, 1993.
The case was tried before Robert L. Steadman, J., and a motion for a new trial was considered by Charles J. Hely, J.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of the deliberately premeditated murder of his wife. Represented by new counsel, he appeals from the judgment of conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial in which he argued that his trial counsel had provided him with ineffective assistance. We conclude that there is no basis to order a new trial or to grant the defendant relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, Sect. 33E. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial and the judgment of conviction.
The Commonwealth presented a strong case which warranted the jury's concluding that the defendant shot and killed the victim after he had deliberately premeditated her murder. The defendant did not deny that he killed her. The contested issue at trial was whether the defendant did so intentionally, as the Commonwealth asserted, because he thought the victim was having an extramarital affair, or whether, as the defendant claimed, he shot her accidentally. His contentions on appeal concern the introduction of what he argues was inadmissible evidence, alleged errors in the Judge's instructions to the jury, and alleged ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.
1. We discern no basis for reversal in the defendant's arguments concerning the Judge's rulings on evidence.
(a) There was testimony that three or four days before the killing, the defendant brought a briefcase to a neighbor's house and asked the neighbor to hold it for him. The defendant told the neighbor that the briefcase contained personal papers that he did not want the victim to destroy. The defendant later told the police that the briefcase also had contained the handgun used to shoot the victim. The neighbor testified that the defendant retrieved the briefcase at about 4:45 P.M. on the day of the killing. After the killing, the police found the briefcase in the master bedroom of the home occupied by the defendant and the victim.
The prosecutor moved to introduce the briefcase and its contents in evidence. She argued that the evidence had relevance on the issue of premeditation. She maintained that the defendant's conduct with respect to the briefcase showed that he wanted to "get [the contents of the briefcase] away from [the victim]," but then "at some point he brought [the briefcase] back when he decided what he was going to do." The prosecutor summed up her position as follows: "And thus, everything that's in [the briefcase] should be considered relevant for the jury to peruse to decide why this man would take a briefcase with these papers next door to a neighbor, including a gun, instead of locking them in the trunk of his car or [putting the briefcase in] a place where his wife might get access and [the jury should] consider [the contents of the briefcase] strictly the Commonwealth's point [about] a man who considered his options and ultimately chose death as the solution to his problems."
The Judge indicated that he would admit the evidence over an objection by the defendant's trial counsel as to relevance. The Judge, however, gave the defendant's trial counsel the opportunity to examine the contents of the briefcase and obj
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Massachusetts Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|