Commonwealth v. Ciminera

Nov 3, 1981
Reporters:
, ,

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. *808Ciminera, 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.