Commonwealth v. Ciminera
This text of 427 N.E.2d 749 (Commonwealth v. Ciminera) 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.
Opinion
We allowed the defendants’ petitions for further appellate review. The defendants claimed that in considering whether extraneous prejudicial information reached the jury, the trial judge and the Appeals Court incorrectly interpreted Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979). The defendants also claimed error in the denial of their motions for a new trial.
We have reviewed the entire record. We are in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the Appeals Court. See Commonwealth v. [808]*808Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101 (1981). We find no reversible error, and we affirm.
Denial of motions for a new trial affirmed.
Judgments of the Superior Court affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
427 N.E.2d 749, 384 Mass. 807, 1981 Mass. LEXIS 1468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-ciminera-mass-1981.