Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, § 33E

Capital cases; review by supreme judicial court

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 33E. In a capital case as hereinafter defined the entry in the supreme judicial court shall transfer to that court the whole case for its consideration of the law and the evidence. Upon such consideration the court may, if satisfied that the verdict was against the law or the weight of the evidence, or because of newly discovered evidence, or for any other reason that justice may require (a) order a new trial or (b) direct the entry of a verdict of a lesser degree of guilt, and remand the case to the superior court for the imposition of sentence. For the purpose of such review a capital case shall mean: (i) a case in which the defendant was tried on an indictment for murder in the first degree and was convicted of murder in the first degree; or (ii) the third conviction of a habitual offender under subsection (b) of section 25 of chapter 279. After the entry of the appeal in a capital case and until the filing of the rescript by the supreme judicial court motions for a new trial shall be presented to that court and shall be dealt with by the full court, which may itself hear and determine such motions or remit the same to the trial judge for hearing and determination. If any motion is filed in the superior court after rescript, no appeal shall lie from the decision of that court upon such motion unless the appeal is allowed by a single justice of the supreme judicial court on the ground that it presents a new and substantial question which ought to be determined by the full court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,800 cases (105 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Brown

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Brown (2017) mass · cites it 33× “The defendant also asks us to order a new trial under our extraordinary authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 3 We conclude that the Commonwealth introduced sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant knowingly participated in the underlying felonies and, therefore, was…”

Commonwealth v. Gould (1980) mass · cites it 16× “[1] Alternatively, the defendant asks that we order a new trial or reduce the verdict to murder in the second degree pursuant to G.L.c. 278, § 33E. Although we find no error at trial, pursuant to our power under G.”

Commonwealth v. Cunneen (1983) mass · cites it 14× “Thus, without reference to the tests Conley *226 performed on the substances from Soupcon, the evidence established that oxidizing agents could not have caused the positive test reaction Conley described. 3. The judge charged the jury on premeditation and extreme atrocity or…”

Commonwealth v. Randolph (2002) mass · cites it 7× “We affirmed his convictions, denied relief after a review of the entire record pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and affirmed the denial of a motion for a new trial.”

Commonwealth v. Vargas (2016) mass · cites it 7× “The defendant also requests that we exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to order a new trial or reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree to voluntary manslaughter.”

Commonwealth v. Gunter (2011) mass · cites it 14× “The defendant then filed an application in the county court, pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, seeking leave to appeal from that ruling.”

Commonwealth v. Moore (2018) mass · cites it 11× “The defendant also argues that we should exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to order a new trial or reduce the murder verdict for a myriad of reasons.”

Commonwealth v. Clemente (2008) mass · cites it 10× “Finally, Anthony requests that we exercise our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant him a new trial.”

Commonwealth v. Ciampa (1989) mass · cites it 12× “In discussing the grounds on which we determine that admission of the plea agreement and certain testimony concerning *268 it constitute reversible error, the dissent states its view that, in certain instances, appellate rights were not preserved at trial or an issue was not…”

Commonwealth v. Imbert (2018) mass · cites it 8× “After a review of the entire record, we also decline to reduce or set aside the defendant's convictions under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background . We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reserving certain details for discussion of specific issues.”

Dickerson v. Attorney General (1986) mass · cites it 13× “Dickerson, brought a declaratory judgment action in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County challenging the constitutionality of G. L. c. 278, § 33E (1984 ed.), which requires defendants convicted of murder in the first degree to obtain leave from a single justice of this…”

Commonwealth v. Rolon (2003) mass · cites it 10× “The defendant appeals from his convictions 2 and asks this court to order a new trial or to further reduce the verdict to manslaughter pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. For the following reasons, we affirm the conviction of murder in the first degree, reverse the order reducing…”

Show all 1,800 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.