Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Conviction Relief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellant presses Rule 25(b)(2) relief, panel probes estoppel and standards of review
Summary
In Commonwealth v. Edward Starling Jr., counsel argued a motion judge erred by treating prior 33(e) review as a bar to Rule 25(b)(2) relief and by failing to reduce a murder verdict; the panel questioned standards of review and whether errors were prejudicial.
Appellate counsel Elizabeth Cattacker argued the motion judge abused discretion by refusing to consider the 25(b)(2) motion’s merits after a prior 33(e) review and by misapplying precedent when assessing malice and jury instructions. She said the motion judge erred by treating the SJC’s boilerplate language as dispositive and by failing to hold the prosecution to proof of circumstances known to the defendant for the third-prong malice instruction.
The panel explored whether the correct standard of appellate review is abuse of discretion when the motion judge was not the trial judge and whether an error of law converts to abuse of discretion. Justice questioning focused on whether factual gaps (what the defendant actually knew) and medical-examiner evidence supported the motion judge’s findings.
Commonwealth counsel Molly Paris said the motion judge acted within the range of reasonable alternatives and stressed that the SJC already conducted a 33(e) review that directly addressed malice and instructions, making further relief unlikely to disturb finality.
Counsel also discussed the defendant’s post-release placement and the practicalities of prison-to-nursing-home transfers; after questioning on standards and remedies, counsel rested and the case was submitted.
