Commonwealth v. Moore (2018)

"If the defendant meets that initial burden, 'a balancing test is employed to determine the appropriateness and extent of remedial 12 action.'" Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 811 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Willie, 400 Mass. 427, 432 (1987), abrogated in part on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Williams, 455 Mass. 706, 714-719 (2010).

In reviewing the exclusion of third-party culprit evidence, "[b]ecause the issue is one of constitutional dimension, we are not bound by an abuse of discretion standard, but rather examine the issue independently." Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 807 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60, 66-67 (2004).

We thus agree with the motion judge that the defendant's arguments based on what the purported witnesses might have told the jury are "speculative" and fail to support a claim of ineffective 7 assistance.5 See Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 817 (2018) (ineffective assistance claim based on failure to call witness "generally doomed" when no affidavits "disclose the content of the omitted" testimony [citation omitted]). c.

The admissibility of such evidence hinges first, and foremost, on its relevance." 8 Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 808 (2018).

Evidence is relevant and admissible when it has some tendency to "make a consequential fact more or less probable than it would be without that evidence." Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 808 (2018)., In a typical OUI case, a defendant's "driving performance, appearance, demeanor, execution of field sobriety tests, and conduct at booking" are relevant "proof of impaired operation." Commonwealth v. Hourican, 85 Mass. App. Ct. 408, 417 (2014).

L. c. 278, § 33E." Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 805 (2018).

Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 815 (2018).

Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 805 (2018), citing Commonwealth v. Alicea, 464 Mass. 837, 840 , (2013).

L. c. 278, § 33E." Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 805 (2018). "[W]e examine the denial of a motion for a new trial to determine whether there was error, and, if so, whether the error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice." Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 481 Mass. 641, 649 (2019), citing Commonwealth v. Vargas, 475 Mass. 338, 355 (2016), and "afford particular deference to factual determinations made by a motion 14 judge who was also the trial judge."…

See Commonwealth v. Amirault , 424 Mass. 618 , 649, 677 N.E.2d 652 (1997). 13 The standard articulated in Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago , 453 Mass. 782 , 906 N.E.2d 299 (2009), regarding the standard of admissibility for evidence offered in support of a defense under Commonwealth v. Bowden , 379 Mass. 472 , 485-486, 399 N.E.2d 482 (1980), was recently clarified in Commonwealth v. Moore , 480 Mass. 799 , 809 n.9, 109 N.E.3d 484 (2018).

See Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 811 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Harwood, 432 Mass. 290, 302 (2000) ("Our courts have [properly] fashioned or upheld various judicial remedies for the loss of evidence"). 2.

CHURCH HAS FAILED TO MEET HER INITIAL BURDEN UNDER THE FIRST WAY TO OBTAIN A REMEDY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH’S DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE Under the first way for seeking a remedy for the destruction of the Samples, Ms. Church “has the initial burden of establishing a reasonable possibility, based on concrete evidence and not on mere speculation, that the Commonwealth’s actions deprive[] h[er] of evidence that would have been favorable to h[er] case.” Commonwealth v. Olszewski, 416 …

See Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799 , 809 n.9 (2018).

See Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 808 (2018) 4 (evidence is relevant if it "provide[s] a link in the chain of proof bearing on an issue of consequence").

See Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799 , 809 n.9 (2018).

See Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 808 (2018); Mass. G.