Opinion
No. 12–P–649.
2014-10-15
COMMONWEALTH v. Victor FIGUEROA.
Given the defendant's behavior, which repeatedly disrupted court procedures, we discern no abuse of discretion. See 454 Mass. at 92, 907 N.E.2d 646 (“[J]udges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, stubbornly defiant defendants must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case”). Further, “[t]he burden is on a defendant to show that the judge's decision [regarding restraints] was wrong, and an appellate court, acknowledging that the judge has a range of discretion, will not reverse [her] decision and vacate a conviction unless [s]he is shown to have been arbitrary and unreasonable.” Commonwealth v. Scionti, 81 Mass.App.Ct. 266, 276, 962 N.E.2d 190 (2012), quoting from Commonwealth v. Brown, supra at 476, 305 N.E.2d 830.