Commonwealth v. Donahue

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s fourth motion for a new trial following his conviction for receiving stolen property. The court held that the motion judge properly rejected an alleged recantation and that the defendant failed to establish that evidence concerning promises or inducements to the principal witness was newly discovered.

Holdings

1. The defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on Fernald's alleged recantation because the motion judge found that Fernald was not telling the truth, and that credibility determination removed the factual basis for the claim.
2. A new trial was not required merely because the judge deciding the motion was not the judge who presided over the trial, particularly where the motion judge had read the trial transcript and rejected the alleged recantation.
3. The defendant was not entitled to a new trial because he failed to meet his burden of showing that the evidence concerning alleged promises or inducements was newly discovered.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the principal witness allegedly recanted his trial testimony.
2. Whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on alleged promises or inducements made to the principal witness by police officers or the prosecution.
3. Whether a new trial was required as a matter of law because the judge deciding the fourth motion was not the judge who presided over the trial.

Disposition

affirmed