Com. v. Plant
Decision Date | 06 May 1994 |
Citation | 634 N.E.2d 896,417 Mass. 704 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Gary F. PLANT. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Charles W. Rankin, Boston, for defendant.
John E. Bradley, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.
Before LIACOS, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
The defendant appeals from convictions of aggravated rape and murder in the first degree and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree by reason of extreme atrocity or cruelty and by reason of having killed in the commission of a felony punishable by life imprisonment (aggravated rape). While the appeal from the convictions was pending, the defendant moved in this court (see G.L. c. 278, § 33E [1992 ed.] ) for a new trial based on the claim that his trial counsel 1 had furnished ineffective assistance by failing properly to investigate, and effectively to present at trial, an insanity defense. A single justice of this court remitted the motion for hearing and determination by the trial judge. After a hearing, the trial judge denied the defendant's motion, explaining his decision in a full memorandum. We affirm the convictions and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
We summarize the judge's findings in reference to the new trial motion. On May 16, 1985, a young woman's body was found in a secluded area in Middleborough. The young woman had been raped. Her neck had been slashed and her head had been struck with a blunt object. She had been stabbed in the abdomen. By May 22, an intensive investigation led the police to the defendant, who submitted to a lengthy interview at the Middleborough State police barracks. The defendant was arrested three days later. He was taken to the State police barracks, given the Miranda warnings and questioned. The judge found that "the interview was video-taped and in the course of it the defendant made some very damaging admissions, amounting to a confession." Following his arrest, the defendant was evaluated at Bridgewater State Hospital for competency to stand trial and criminal responsibility. "[T]he authorities at Bridgewater reported that he was both competent to stand trial and criminally responsible." 2
"While the defendant was at Bridgewater," the judge found, trial counsel
According to the findings, trial counsel moved to suppress the defendant's statements to the police and some materials they had seized pursuant to search warrants. A hearing was held in April, before another Superior Court judge. At the close of that hearing, the Commonwealth moved, pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 14(b), 378 Mass. 874 (1979), for an order requiring the defendant to disclose whether he intended to rely on a defense of lack of criminal responsibility. That motion was allowed and then, according to the findings, As a result of that suggestion, defense counsel moved for authorization to employ a psychiatrist, Dr. John E. Snell, to examine the defendant at the Commonwealth's expense. In an affidavit in support of the motion, counsel stated that the defendant lacked sufficient funds to afford a psychiatrist to determine criminal responsibility and competency to stand trial. That motion was allowed.
We continue with our recitation of the findings relative to the motion for a new trial. After two interviews with the defendant, Dr. Snell wrote to defense counsel. He told counsel that the defendant had told him about his having suicidal tendencies for several years, that the defendant denied any knowledge of the offenses with which he had been charged, saying that on that night he had been walking around trying to kill himself and had one of his episodes of amnesia, and that he had been having hallucinations of dead friends talking to him. Dr. Snell concluded that the defendant was suffering from a thought process disorder which he diagnosed as schizophrenia, undifferentiated type. He stated that the defendant was competent to stand trial and then added the following paragraph:
The judge found that defense counsel
The judge's findings continue:
In his memorandum of decision, the judge described the pertinent occurrences at the trial as follows. After the Commonwealth rested on the tenth day of trial, defense counsel told the jury in his opening that he would offer expert testimony concerning the defendant's mental condition when the crimes were committed and when he was interviewed by the police. As a result, the judge made copies of Dr. Rogers's report available to the prosecutor and defense counsel. The judge states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. White
...to have influenced the jury's conclusion. Commonwealth v. Leitzsey, 421 Mass. 694, 695, 659 N.E.2d 1168 (1996). Commonwealth v. Plant, 417 Mass. 704, 715, 634 N.E.2d 896 (1994). Commonwealth v. Burke, supra at 256-257, 607 N.E.2d 991. Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678, 682, 584 N.E.2d 6......
-
Com. v. Painten
...517, 597 N.E.2d 1037 (1992); Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678, 681-682 & n. 1, 584 N.E.2d 621 (1992)." Commonwealth v. Plant, 417 Mass. 704, 715-716, 634 N.E.2d 896 (1994). We affirm the conviction of murder in the first degree because, applying the G.L. c. 278, § 33E, standard, we see......
-
Com. v. Espada
...influenced the jury's verdict." Commonwealth v. Cormier, 427 Mass. 446, 451, 693 N.E.2d 1015 (1998), quoting Commonwealth v. Plant, 417 Mass. 704, 715, 634 N.E.2d 896 (1994). The defendant has failed to meet his 11. In the defendant's initial argument in the brief he contends that "[Wetter ......
-
Com. v. Mello
...such claims pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 33E, a standard of review that is even more favorable to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Plant, 417 Mass. 704, 715, 634 N.E.2d 896 (1994). Under that standard of review, we need not focus on the adequacy of trial counsel's performance, but rather we foc......