Santiago v. Commonwealth

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Santiago v. Commonwealth

664 N.E.2d 1194, 422 Mass. 1012, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 123

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMay 20, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 664 N.E.2d 1194 (Santiago 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

Santiago v. Commonwealth, 664 N.E.2d 1194, 422 Mass. 1012, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 123 (Mass. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

A single justice of this court denied Felix Santiago’s (defendant’s) request for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), seeking an order prohibiting the Commonwealth from bringing him to trial before a jury on a charge [1013]*1013of murder in the Boston Juvenile Court after he had been tried by a judge without a jury in the Roxbury Division of the District Court. The District Court judge had adjudicated the defendant delinquent by reason of murder in the first degree. Thereafter the defendant exercised his right to claim a jury trial, but he claims that the evidence at the bench trial was insuEcient as a matter of law to sustain the charge on which he was found guilty and that therefore it would violate his right not to be put twice in jeopardy if he is now tried before a jury. Being of the view that the single justice correctly denied interlocutory relief and that all the relief to which the defendant may be entitled can be obtained on review if the defendant is convicted, the judgment of the single justice is aErmed pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995).

Willie J. Davis for the plaintiff. James W. Coffey, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

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

A single justice of this court denied Felix Santiago’s (defendant’s) request for relief pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3 (1994 ed.), seeking an order prohibiting the Commonwealth from bringing him to trial before a jury on a charge [1013]*1013of murder in the Boston Juvenile Court after he had been tried by a judge without a jury in the Roxbury Division of the District Court. The District Court judge had adjudicated the defendant delinquent by reason of murder in the first degree. Thereafter the defendant exercised his right to claim a jury trial, but he claims that the evidence at the bench trial was insuEcient as a matter of law to sustain the charge on which he was found guilty and that therefore it would violate his right not to be put twice in jeopardy if he is now tried before a jury. Being of the view that the single justice correctly denied interlocutory relief and that all the relief to which the defendant may be entitled can be obtained on review if the defendant is convicted, the judgment of the single justice is aErmed pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, 421 Mass. 1303 (1995).

Willie J. Davis for the plaintiff. James W. Coffey, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 N.E.2d 1194, 422 Mass. 1012, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santiago-v-commonwealth-mass-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack