 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Burdick6/1/1998
ions drawn in LeBlanc and Goodwin. As to the prior bad acts mentioned by the prosecutor which had no basis in official records, the defendant at no time challenged the accuracy of the rendition. "If the defendant heard allegations by the Commonwealth which he considered false, we would expect that he would have tried to rebut them." Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 414 Mass. at 95, quoting from Commonwealth v. Settipane, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 648, 656 (1977). As to the victim impact statement, we are aware of no authority or precedent for the Judge to subject its recitation to prior redaction. Contrast evidentiary hearings on restitution, discussed in Commonwealth v. Nawn, 394 Mass. 1, 6-9 (1985).
The third argument, that the Judge punished the defendant for having lied in giving his side of the story, in violation of Commonwealth v. Coleman, 390 Mass. 797, 810 (1984), represents a misreading of the Judge's remarks to the effect that the defendant's view of himself as a victim of harassment and aggression by the former wife B- whether sincere or not -B confirmed the probation officer's assessment that the defendant was a poor candidate for counseling, treatment, and rehabilitation without a significant period of incarceration to persuade him that his transgressions were being taken seriously.
Judgments affirmed.
|