#Judicial consent 1994 alley scene trial

278, В§вЂ‚33E, that there is no reason to order a new trial or reduce the defendant's conviction of murder to a lesser degree of guilt.Д«ecause the strength of the Commonwealth's case has pertinence to the defendant's claim concerning the performance of his trial counsel, we set forth the facts that the jury could have found based on the Commonwealth's evidence. We also conclude, after examining the record of the trial pursuant to G.L. We conclude that there is no basis to set aside the jury's verdict. The defendant also argues that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that, in order to find the defendant guilty of felony-murder, they had to find that the victim's death was a natural and probable consequence of the armed robbery. 1 Represented by new counsel on appeal, the defendant argues that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance because counsel failed to pursue, or to seek a jury instruction on, the issue of duress. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.ДЄ jury in the Superior Court convicted the defendant of armed robbery while masked and felony-murder in the first degree as a joint venturer in the robbery. Obligato,Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston, for the defendant. Present: ABRAMS, LYNCH, GREANEY, MARSHALL, & IRELAND, JJ.Д¬arlo A.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,Plymouth.Д¬OMMONWEALTH v.

#Judicial consent 1994 alley scene trial