Commonwealth v. Demers

2 N.E.3d 872, 466 Mass. 1040, 2014 WL 92195, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 9
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 13, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 N.E.3d 872 (Commonwealth v. Demers) 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
Commonwealth v. Demers, 2 N.E.3d 872, 466 Mass. 1040, 2014 WL 92195, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 9 (Mass. 2014).

Opinion

The petitioner, Joseph R. Demers, Jr., was convicted in 1990 of murder in the second degree. Representing himself, he filed a motion in the Superior Court in 2013 seeking a new trial, claiming that the court room was improperly closed during his trial. His motion was denied, as was his motion for reconsideration. He then filed a petition in the county court attempting to invoke this court’s extraordinary power of general superintendence to address his claim of court room closure. A single justice summarily denied the petition, and the petitioner appeals. The single justice correctly denied relief. The petitioner was not entitled to extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3, because he had an adequate alternative remedy, namely, an appeal as a matter of right to the Appeals Court from the denial of his motions. See McGuinness v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 495, 497-498 (1985).1

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Larisha Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 N.E.3d 872, 466 Mass. 1040, 2014 WL 92195, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-demers-mass-2014.