Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial arising from 1964 convictions for first-degree murder and armed robbery. The court held that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a direct appeal and reviewed the remaining claims under the substantial-risk-of-a-miscarriage-of-justice standard. It also concluded that alleged errors involving the presumption-of-innocence instruction and courtroom shackling were not structural errors and did not warrant relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising the defendant not to pursue a direct appeal, such that the collateral claims should receive the more favorable standard of review applicable to direct appeals.
- Whether the trial court's presumption-of-innocence instruction constituted structural error or otherwise created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether shackling the defendant and placing him under armed guard throughout trial constituted structural error or otherwise created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Holdings
- Trial counsel was not ineffective in advising the defendant not to appeal where the appeal would have had little apparent merit, the defendant had admitted participating in the crimes, and a successful appeal would have exposed him to the risk of the death penalty on retrial. The case therefore remained an appeal from a collateral attack on a final conviction.
- Because the defendant's case was a collateral attack rather than a direct appeal, the remaining alleged errors were reviewed to determine whether they were structural or, if nonstructural, whether they created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
- An error in a presumption-of-innocence instruction does not constitute structural error.
- The defendant's shackling in front of the jury did not constitute structural error under the circumstances, including the clear security risk he posed.
- Neither the presumption-of-innocence instruction nor the shackling issue created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, and the denial of the motion for a new trial was not manifestly unjust.
Key quotations
“Consequently, we conclude that the defendant’s case is not here on direct appeal but as an appeal from a collateral attack on a final conviction.” (703)
“We therefore reject the defendant’s argument on this point.” (704)
“Consequently, the judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial was not manifestly unjust, nor was the trial infected with prejudicial constitutional error.” (705)
Factual background
On December 28, 1963, the defendant, John F. Petetabella, and Gerald Sousa entered Padden's Cafe in Fall River intending to rob it after a night of heavy drinking. The defendant held a female patron at knifepoint while Petetabella shot and killed the bar owner, Jean Thibeault, and Sousa attempted to shoot another employee; the men took wallets and fled. The defendant admitted participating in the robbery but disputed Sousa's presence and presented a lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense supported by expert testimony.
Procedural history
A jury convicted the defendant in 1964, and he did not pursue a direct appeal. Nearly forty-five years later, he moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance for failure to pursue a direct appeal and challenging the presumption-of-innocence instruction and his shackling during trial. After an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court denied the amended motion without prejudice and permitted renewal subject to the outcome of codefendant Petetabella's appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court treated the matter as an appeal from a collateral attack, not as a direct appeal, and affirmed.