Preview:

Commonwealth v. Carr Opinion Summary: After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motions to dismiss for violations of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, impairment of the integrity of the grand jury, and loss of evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for funds to retain an identification expert; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made to police officers; (4) the trial court did not err in making certain evidentiary rulings at trial; and (5) Defendant's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. COMMONWEALTH vs. Rodolfo CARR. SJC-10284. Suffolk. December 7, 2012. - April 16, 2013. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Speedy trial, Grand jury, Admissions and confessions, Waiver of constitutional rights, Confrontation of witnesses, Identification, Assistance of counsel. Due Process of Law, Grand jury proceedings, Loss of evidence by prosecution, Identification, Assistance of counsel. Practice, Criminal, Speedy trial, Grand jury proceedings, Loss of evidence by prosecution, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Waiver, Confrontation of witnesses, Identification of defendant in courtroom, Assistance of counsel, Capital case. Evidence, Grand jury proceedings, Identification, Photograph, Consciousness of guilt, Exculpatory, Admissions and confessions, Death certificate, Identification, Photograph, Consciousness of guilt. Witness, Expert, Impeachment. Grand Jury. Identification. INDICTMENT found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 23, 1997. Motions to dismiss the indictment, filed on November 25, 2002, January 7, 2003, and May 2, 2003, were heard by Patrick F. Brady, J.; motions to dismiss the indictment and a motion for funds for an expert witness, filed on April 15, and June 14, 2004, respectively, were heard by Barbara J. Rouse, J.; a motion to dismiss the indictment and a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, filed on November 29, 2004, were heard by Christine M. McEvoy, J.; and the case was tried before her. Russell C. Sobelman for the defendant. Amanda Teo, Assistant District Attorney (Edmond J. Zabin, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, & Lenk, JJ. LENK, J. On December 15, 2004, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation for the fatal shooting of Carlos Matos on August 5, 1974. Although a murder complaint issued against the defendant shortly after the victim's death, the defendant fled the Commonwealth and was not indicted until 1997. In the interim, he was charged, inter alia, with numerous drug crimes in Indiana and Illinois under various aliases. The Commonwealth again learned of the defendant's whereabouts in 1994, while he was incarcerated in an Indiana state prison. In 1997, the defendant waived extradition and was returned to Massachusetts. On appeal, the defendant claims error in a number of respects. He asserts that his motions to dismiss for violations of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, impairment of the integrity of the grand jury, and loss of evidence, as well as his motion for funds to retain an identification expert, should not have been denied. He maintains that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to Boston police officers while incarcerated in Indiana, and also that there were multiple errors in the judge's evidentiary rulings. Additionally, the defendant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm the conviction and decline to exercise our power under G.L. c. 278,

Download sjc-10284.pdf

Massachusetts Law