Preview:

Commonwealth v. Robideau Opinion Summary: After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of murder in the first degree and two counts of armed robbery. Defendant did not appeal. Nearly forty-five years later, Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, collaterally attacking his conviction. A judge denied Defendant's amended motion and granted Defendant leave to renew that motion subject to the outcome of his co-defendant's appeal from the denial of a similar motion for new trial. Rather than awaiting the outcome of that case, Defendant appealed the denial of his motion. The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the denial of the co-defendant's motion for a new trial and concluded that the Court's decision in that case was controlling in the present appeal. The Court affirmed the judge's denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial, holding that the judge's denial of Defendant's motion for new trial was not manifestly unjust, nor was the trial infected with prejudicial constitutional error. COMMONWEALTH vs. Joseph ROBIDEAU. SJC-11053. Bristol. November 9, 2012. - March 18, 2013. Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Postconviction relief, New trial, Assistance of counsel, Instructions to jury, Presumptions and burden of proof. INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court on February 5, 1964. A motion for new trial, filed on May 5, 2009, was heard by D. Lloyd Macdonald, J. Aziz Safar for the defendant. Tara L. Blackman, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Gants, JJ. CORDY, J. On July 2, 1964, the defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of murder in the first degree, G.L. c. 265,

Download sjc-11053.pdf

Massachusetts Law