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.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the principal witness allegedly recanted his trial testimony.
- 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.
- 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.
Holdings
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Key quotations
“The burden was on the defendant to show that the evidence in support of his motion was newly discovered; this burden was not met.” (972)
“But this request for "consideration" does not require an inference that it was made as a result of a promise to Fernald in exchange for his testimony.” (973)
Factual background
The defendant had been convicted of receiving stolen property, principally on the testimony of Fernald. Fernald and others later submitted affidavits and testimony asserting that Fernald had lied at trial, but the motion judge rejected the alleged recantation as untruthful. The defendant also relied on evidence that police officers may have offered Fernald assistance or consideration, but the record showed that defense counsel knew of relevant information before trial or had an opportunity to pursue it earlier, and the motion judge credited the prosecuting attorney's denial of any promise.
Procedural history
The defendant's conviction had previously been affirmed, along with the denial of three earlier motions for a new trial. In his fourth motion, he asserted newly discovered evidence consisting of an alleged recantation by the principal witness and alleged promises or inducements made to that witness by members of the prosecution team. The motion judge rejected the recantation and found that the evidence concerning promises and inducements was not newly discovered; the Appeals Court affirmed.