Preview:

Commonwealth v. Dyer Opinion Summary: Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, and also of armed assault with intent to kill. Defendant appealed from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. Defendant argued that he was entitled to reversal of the convictions and a new trial because the courtroom was improperly closed during individual voir dire of prospective jurors; the judge, outside the presence of defendant, improperly questioned jurors and discussed questions from the jury; defendant was improperly denied a post trial evidentiary hearing on the possible bias of two deliberating jurors; the trial judge committed evidentiary errors; the judge's instructions on malice, voluntary manslaughter, and self -defense were in error; and his trial counsel was ineffective in many respects. The court thoroughly examined the record and affirmed defendant's convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, declining to exercise its power under G.L.c. 278, section 33 E.
COMMONWEALTH vs. Charles P. DYER.
SJC-07460.
May 6, 2011. - October 13, 2011.
Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Public trial, Voir dire, Confrontation of witnesses, Jury and jurors, Presence of
defendant, Interrogation of jurors, Challenge to jurors, Instructions to jury, Assistance of counsel, Capital case.
Constitutional Law, Public trial, Waiver of constitutional rights, Confrontation of witnesses, Jury, Assistance of
counsel. Waiver. Due Process of Law, Presence of defendant in courtroom. Evidence, Relevancy and materiality, State
of mind, Offer of proof, Prior misconduct. Homicide. Malice. Self-Defense.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on July 24, 1991.

The cases were tried before Elizabeth J. Dolan, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on March 16, 2004, was heard by
David A. McLaughlin, J.

Judith H. Mizner for the defendant.

William R. Connolly, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ.

BOTSFORD, J.

A jury in the Superior Court found the defendant, Charles P. Dyer, guilty of murder in the first degree of Roy Drew on
a theory of deliberate premeditation, and also of armed assault with intent to kill George Eldridge. [FN1] Before us is
the defendant's appeal from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. The defendant argues
that he is entitled to reversal of the convictions and a new trial because the court room was improperly closed during
individual voir dire of prospective jurors; the judge, outside the presence of the defendant, improperly questioned
jurors and discussed questions from the jury; he was improperly denied a posttrial evidentiary hearing on the possible
bias of two deliberating jurors; the trial judge committed evidentiary errors; the judge's instructions on malice,
voluntary manslaughter, and self -defense were in error; and his trial counsel was ineffective in many respects. We
affirm the defendant's convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, and we decline to exercise our power
under G.L. c. 278,

Download sjc-07460.pdf

Massachusetts Law