Commonwealth v. Griffin

by
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and of home invasion. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminal responsible at the time of the killing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed and declined to exercise its authority to order a new trial or to reduce the verdict of murder in the first degree, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to permit a finding of criminal responsibility; (2) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (3) any impropriety in statements by the two prosecutors in their opening statement and closing argument was not prejudicial; and (4) the trial judge did not err in giving an instruction on the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. View "Commonwealth v. Griffin" on Justia Law