![]() The crimes precluded treatment of shoplifting as a lesser included offenseĪ criminal defendant claiming a violation of his right to a public trial failed toĭemonstrate either that the trial judge did anything to close the court room Lesser included offense of armed robbery, where the distinctions between Manslaughter, that the Commonwealth had "proved the killing was unlawful" was clearly an isolated slip of the tongue that, when considered in theĬontext of the instructions as a whole, could not have affected the verdict.įelony, the judge did not err in declining to instruct on shoplifting as a Īt a murder trial, the judge's statement, during her instructions on involuntary Of this case, the judge instructed on this issue as requested by the defendant, and the instruction was proper. Police further, although it remained an open issue whether theĭefendant was entitled to an instruction on self-defense in the circumstances Solely in an effort to escape after having abandoned his attempt to steal theįelony, the judge correctly instructed that store employees may use reasonably necessary force to detain a shoplifter while investigating or calling the To convict the defendant if they found that he committed the stabbing His escape from the scene, and the judge properly declined to give theĭefendant's requested instruction, which would not have permitted the jury Was armed with a dangerous weapon during his taking of the property or The jury that a conviction must be based on a conclusion that the defendant Evidence, Self-defense, Expert opinion, Relevancy and materiality, Videotape.Īt the trial of indictments charging the defendant with murder in the firstĭegree on a theory of felony-murder with armed robbery as the predicateįelony, the judge correctly instructed on armed robbery by conveying to Constitutional Law, Public trial, Confrontation of witnesses. Included offense, Public trial, Capital case. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury, Lesser (3) SJC-10278 03 Appellant Rogers Reply Brief.(2) SJC-10278 02 Appellee Commonwealth Brief.(1) SJC-10278 01 Appellant Rogers Brief.249 DecemApCourt Below: Superior Court, Suffolk Present: IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |