Com. v. Remick

• Decision Date: 13 November 1973
• Citation: Com. v. Remick, 303 N.E.2d 359, 1 Mass.App.Ct. 856 (Mass. App. 1973)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Peter H. REMICK.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 359

303 N.E.2d 359

1 Mass.App.Ct. 856

COMMONWEALTH v.Peter H. REMICK.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Oct. 10, 1973.

Decided Nov. 13, 1973.

Malvine Nathanson, New York City, for defendant.

Thomas J. Mundy, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before HALE, C.J., and GRANT and ARMSTRONG, JJ.

RESCRIPT.

The defendant was convicted of armed robbery after a trial held pursuant to the provisions of G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G.Although the defendant acted as his own attorney, the court afforded him the continual presence and assistance of a member of the Massachusetts Defenders Committee during the trial.The one assignment of error asserts that the trial judge erred in failing to charge the jury 'sua sponte' on the 'law of circumstantial evidence.'As no exception was taken to any part of the charge, the assignment of error brings nothing to this court for review.Commonwealth v. McCauley, 355 Mass. 554, 558, 246 N.E.2d 425(1969).COMMONWEALTH V. LAURIA, MASS.(1971), 268 N.E.2D 363.^AThe defendant asks us to exercise the power referred to in Commonwealth v. Conroy, 333 Mass. 751, 756--757, 133 N.E.2d 246(1956), andCommonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556, 564, 227 N.E.2d 3(1967).Our examination of the transcript of the trial, including the judge's charge, does not reveal any likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

Judgment affirmed.

a. Mass.Adv.Sh. (1971) 479, 482.