 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Squailia3/2/1999
n himself in and to surrender his handgun. When he surrendered his handgun, he said to a police officer, "I did it, here it is." He later told another police officer that the incident occurred because the victim had been staying out late and he was suspicious of an extramarital affair on her part. The defendant told a State trooper that the victim "drove him to it" by her infidelity and conduct. He explained that, on the night of the killing, he and the victim argued, and he put a single bullet in his handgun and "must have shot her." The Commonwealth moved, in advance of the trial, to require the defendant to disclose whether he intended to file and litigate a pretrial motion to suppress. The defendant filed a written response to the Commonwealth's motion which he and his trial counsel signed. The response stated that, "after consultation with counsel no motion to suppress will be filed in [this] case regarding statements made by the efendant to the Wareham olice or the State olice."
In his motion for a new trial, the defendant asserted that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he did not file a motion to suppress. The defendant alleged that his statements to the police were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights and his right to counsel, and that they were involuntary. In his affidavit in support of the new trial motion, the defendant stated that he had exercised his right to remain silent and had requested an attorney and went on to state " t no time did I knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently waive any motion to suppress in this matter."
The Judge rejected the defendant's assertions because the record reasonably demonstrated that the defendant and his trial counsel had discussed whether to file a motion to suppress, and they had made a strategic decision not to do so. The Judge's Conclusion is supported by the defendant's signed acknowledgment quoted above, and the indication from the record that the defendant and his trial counsel appear to have concluded that, while the defendant told the police he had shot the victim, his statements conveyed a considerable amount of information that would support his defense strategy as it was being planned out prior to trial. The motion Judge correctly rejected the defendant's contentions.
(b) The defendant's remaining assertions of ineffective assistance were properly denied by the motion Judge for the reasons stated in his memorandum of decision. They need not be separately discussed.
4. There is no reason to grant the defendant relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, Sect. 33E. There was ample evidence that the defendant premeditated the killing. The defendant has not demonstrated that any ruling made by the trial or motion Judge could have had a significant impact on the fairness or Justice of the result.
5. The order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial is affirmed. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
So ordered.
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.
|
|