Barnoski v. Com.
| Decision Date | 07 December 1992 |
| Citation | 413 Mass. 1007,603 N.E.2d 915 |
| Parties | William BARNOSKI v. COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, Quincy, for William Barnoski.
Marguerite T. Grant, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.
This is an appeal by William Barnoski (petitioner) from the denial of relief under G.L. c. 211, § 3 (1990 ed.), by a single justice of this court. We affirm.
Generally, absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion, a decision of a single justice will not be disturbed. Kyricopoulos v. Richardson, 409 Mass. 1002, 566 N.E.2d 101 (1991). For the extraordinary relief sought under G.L. c. 211, § 3, the petitioner must show "both a substantial claim of violation of his substantive rights and irremediable error, such that he cannot be placed in status quo in the regular course of appeal." Morrissette v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 197, 198, 402 N.E.2d 492 (1980). The petitioner has not met either condition.
The record fails to disclose any factual basis for asserting a denial of constitutional or statutory rights in the jury selection. It is the petitioner's duty to develop such a record. There is nothing in Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 318 (1992), which supports the petitioner's position.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Barnoski
...pursuant to G.L. c. 211, § 3 (1992 ed.). The single justice denied relief, and his decision was affirmed in Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007, 603 N.E.2d 915 (1992).3 See also G.L. c. 234, § 1A (1992 ed.), which authorizes a judge to excuse from jury service any person for whom such ......
-
Gorod v. Tabachnick
...425 Mass. 1021, 681 N.E.2d 278 (1997). Hines v. Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 1013, 1013, 680 N.E.2d 1172 (1997). Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007, 603 N.E.2d 915 (1992). Allen v. Christian, 408 Mass. 1007, 1008, 563 N.E.2d 234 (1990). The petitioners did not create such a record, and so ......
-
Matthews v. D'Arcy
...pursued these avenues in the trial court. It was Matthews's duty to substantiate his allegation. See Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007, 603 N.E.2d 915 (1992) (noting petitioner's duty to develop a factual record before the single justice adequate to support the allegations of G.L. c.......
-
Campiti v. Com.
...that, absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion, a decision of a single justice need not be disturbed. Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1007, 603 N.E.2d 915 (1992). Kyricopoulos v. Richardson, 409 Mass. 1002, 566 N.E.2d 101 (1991). The single justice's discretionary power of revie......