He claims error in (1) the venue of the trial (2) the introduction of evidence exceeding the bill of particulars (3) the judge's instructions and lack thereof (4) the assistance of trial counsel (5) the denial of his motion for a required finding (6) the limits placed on his cross-examination of the complainant (7) the prosecution'sĬlosing arguments (8) alleged juror contact with the complainant and (9) the judge's denial of a posttrial, pre-appeal motion for a new trial. Found guilty by a Superior Court jury on an indictment alleging larceny by false pretense, and sentenced to serve a term at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Cedar Junction of not less than four and one-half years nor more than five years, Christopher Barden Lewis appeals both his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial. Lillios, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Motion for postconviction relief was heard by her. INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 24, 1994.Ī motion for leave to proceed was heard by Robert H. No reversible error appeared on the record of a criminal trial by reason of the asserted legal insufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, closing argument by the prosecutor, or alleged extraneous influence on the jury. Ī criminal defendant did not demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective for his failure to call a certain witness, whose supposed testimony did not appear to be helpful to the defendant's case. Īt the trial of an indictment alleging larceny by false pretense, no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice arose from the judge's failure to instruct the jury on her own motion that they had to find unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed at least one of the acts set forth in the Commonwealth's bill of particulars and that such act constituted a false representation that led to the victim's parting with her money. Ĭhecks and bank records introduced in evidence at the trial of an indictment for larceny by false pretense supported the charge and did not establish a crime different from that alleged and further described in a bill of particulars, and the prosecutor's reference to that evidence in closing argument was proper. 57A, that the indictment for larceny by false pretense was properly triable in Middlesex County. In a criminal case, the judge's findings of fact supported his ruling on the Commonwealth's motion under G. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Confrontation of witnesses. Required finding, Assistance of counsel, Confrontation of witnesses, Jury and jurors. Practice, Criminal, Venue, Bill of particulars, Argument by prosecutor, Instructions to jury. Present: ARMSTRONG, PERETTA, & GELINAS, JJ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |