Home/Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court/Commonwealth v. Ciminera

Commonwealth v. Ciminera

427 N.E.2d 749, 384 Mass. 807, 1981 Mass. LEXIS 1468
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 3, 1981·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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] Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101 (1981). We find no reversible error, and we affirm.

Thomas P. McCusker, Jr., for Anthony Ciminera (John F. Sheehan, for David Jarjura, with him). John P. Courtney for George Navikauskis. Charles J. Hely, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

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

Commonwealth v. Ciminera, 427 N.E.2d 749, 384 Mass. 807, 1981 Mass. LEXIS 1468 (Mass. 1981).

427 N.E.2d 749 (Commonwealth v. Ciminera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Kincaid
828 N.E.2d 45 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005)
Commonwealth v. Kincaid
813 N.E.2d 875 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2004)
Commonwealth v. Jacobson
477 N.E.2d 158 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1985)
Commonwealth v. Preston
471 N.E.2d 340 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1984)
Commonwealth v. Dutra
446 N.E.2d 1091 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1983)
Commonwealth v. Brown
440 N.E.2d 1179 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1982)
Commonwealth v. Tavares
430 N.E.2d 1198 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)