From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Hunter

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 3, 2012
11-P-682 (Mass. Apr. 3, 2012)

Opinion

11-P-682

04-03-2012

COMMONWEALTH v. IAN HUNTER.


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 defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of carrying a firearm without a license, G. L. c. 269, § 10(a); possessing a firearm without a firearm identification (FID) card, G. L. c. 269, § 10(h); carrying a loaded firearm, G. L. c. 269, § 10(n); possessing a firearm while committing a felony, G. L. c. 265, § 18B; and two counts of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B(b). On appeal, he contends that the judge improperly allowed the prosecutor to question him about his personal associations, his prior interactions with law enforcement, and his prior criminal proceedings. In addition, he argues that his convictions under G. L. c. 269, § 10, should be vacated on the ground that that statute, and G. L. c. 140, §§ 129B and 131, violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

1. Challenge to prosecutor's questions. Assuming, without deciding, that the prosecutor's questions were improper, we conclude that the error was not prejudicial. The Commonwealth presented a strong case that the defendant shot at the victims named in the indictments; therefore the evidence elicited by the challenged questions had little or no effect on the jury's decision. See Commonwealth v. Lodge, 431 Mass. 461, 468 (2000).

Off-duty Boston police Officer Jerome Smart testified that, shortly after hearing gunshots, he saw the defendant round the corner with a gun in his hand, and that he never took his eyes off of the defendant until he was arrested a short time thereafter. Moreover, the firearm used in the shooting was located in the path of the defendant's flight and in the place where the defendant had stopped for a short period of time prior to his arrest.

The Commonwealth's ballisticians matched shell casings recovered from the scene of the shooting with the handgun recovered from an area in the defendant's flight path.

2. Constitutional challenge. The defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the convictions under G. L. c. 269, § 10, is controlled by Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572, 589-590 (2011), which held that a defendant cannot violate the law and then attempt to justify his actions by raising a constitutional challenge to his convictions.

The defendant argues that Powell 'was wrongly decided.' This court 'ha [s] no power to alter, overrule or decline to follow the holding of cases the Supreme Judicial Court has decided.' Commonwealth v. Dube, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 476, 485 (2003).
--------

Judgments affirmed.

By the Court (Cohen, Green & Graham, JJ.),


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Hunter

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Apr 3, 2012
11-P-682 (Mass. Apr. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. IAN HUNTER.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Apr 3, 2012

Citations

11-P-682 (Mass. Apr. 3, 2012)