Barnoski v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Barnoski v. Commonwealth

603 N.E.2d 915, 413 Mass. 1007, 1992 Mass. LEXIS 580

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedDecember 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 603 N.E.2d 915 (Barnoski v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnoski v. Commonwealth, 603 N.E.2d 915, 413 Mass. 1007, 1992 Mass. LEXIS 580 (Mass. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal by William Barnoski (petitioner) from the denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1990 ed.), by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

Generally, absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion, a decision of a single justice will not be disturbed. Kyricopoulos v. Richardson, 409 Mass. 1002 (1991). For the extraordinary relief sought under G. L. c. 211, § 3, the petitioner must show “both a substantial claim of violation of his substantive rights and irremediable error, such that he cannot be placed in statu quo in the regular course of appeal.” Morrissette v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 197, 198 (1980). The petitioner has not met either condition.

The record fails to disclose any factual basis for asserting a denial of constitutional or statutory rights in the jury selection. It is the petitioner’s duty to develop such a record. There is nothing in Keeney v. TamayoReyes, 112 S. Ct. 1715 (1992), which supports the petitioner’s position.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an appeal by William Barnoski (petitioner) from the denial of relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1990 ed.), by a single justice of this court. We affirm.

Generally, absent clear error of law or abuse of discretion, a decision of a single justice will not be disturbed. Kyricopoulos v. Richardson, 409 Mass. 1002 (1991). For the extraordinary relief sought under G. L. c. 211, § 3, the petitioner must show “both a substantial claim of violation of his substantive rights and irremediable error, such that he cannot be placed in statu quo in the regular course of appeal.” Morrissette v. Commonwealth, 380 Mass. 197, 198 (1980). The petitioner has not met either condition.

The record fails to disclose any factual basis for asserting a denial of constitutional or statutory rights in the jury selection. It is the petitioner’s duty to develop such a record. There is nothing in Keeney v. TamayoReyes, 112 S. Ct. 1715 (1992), which supports the petitioner’s position.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 N.E.2d 915, 413 Mass. 1007, 1992 Mass. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnoski-v-commonwealth-mass-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack