Opinion
10-P-1328
11-04-2011
COMMONWEALTH v. CELESTAL DUROSS.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
The judge was within her discretion to allow the motion to amend the indictment after finding that the amendment was not one of substance, did not result in prejudice to the defendant, and did not materially alter the work of the grand jury. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 4(d), 378 Mass. 849 (1979); Commonwealth v. Knight, 437 Mass. 487, 491-492 (2002). Further, the judge properly denied the defendant's motion for required findings of not guilty, and the defendant has not established that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 675, 679 (2010), further appellate review granted, 458 Mass. 1112 (2011) (review limited to propriety of prosecutor's closing argument). For these reasons, and for substantially the reasons set forth in the Commonwealth's brief, the judgements of the trial court are affirmed.
So ordered.
By the Court (Kafker, Trainor & Meade, JJ.),