Commonwealth v. Lane
462 Mass. 591
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Lane was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, arising from a shooting at a Worcester service station.
- The defense did not call a potential witness, Norman Levesque, whose testimony could contradict the eyewitness description of the shooter.
- Defense opened by stating Levesque would testify with a description different from Lane, but Levesque was not called at trial.
- The trial judge granted a new-trial motion finding ineffective assistance of counsel due to failing to call Levesque; the Appeals Court reversed, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted review.
- The SJC affirmed, holding defense counsel’s decision not to call Levesque was manifestly unreasonable, and the absence prejudiced the defense, warranting a new trial.
- Posture involved the same case context as the new-trial grant, with related identification and corroborating evidence tying the two shooting incidents together
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel's decision not to call Levesque ineffective assistance? | Lane | Lane’s counsel acted strategically | Yes, decision manifestly unreasonable; new trial affirmed |
| Did opening statements about Levesque create reversible prejudice when Levesque was not called? | Lane | Opening statements are not evidence; tactical choice | No direct reversible prejudice; but combined with witness absence, prejudice found |
| Did the trial judge abuse discretion in granting a new trial based on Levesque's absence? | Lane | Judge overstepped on deference to trial tactics | No; discretion properly exercised; new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1974) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Zagrodny, 443 Mass. 93 (Mass. 2004) (manifestly unreasonable tactical decisions may require review)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 432 Mass. 704 (Mass. 2000) (impartial witness missing; not reasonable strategic decision)
- Commonwealth v. Duran, 435 Mass. 97 (Mass. 2001) (opening statement referencing missing witness; potential basis for IAC)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 393 Mass. 318 (Mass. 1984) (trial judge's advantage in evaluating witness testimony on motion for new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 380 Mass. 314 (Mass. 1980) (standard for discretion in post-trial rulings)