Commonwealth v. Lee


NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12383 COMMONWEALTH vs. SIFA LEE. 1 Essex. May 10, 2019. - November 12, 2019. Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Budd, & Cypher, JJ. Homicide. Stealing by Confining or Putting in Fear. Armed Assault with Intent to Murder. Interpreter. Constitutional Law, Fair trial, Assistance of counsel, Self-incrimination, Waiver of constitutional rights. Due Process of Law, Interpreter. Fair Trial. Jury and Jurors. Witness, Self- incrimination. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Interpreter, Fair trial, Assistance of counsel, Instructions to jury, Empanelment of jury, Waiver. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 28, 2011. The cases were tried before David A. Lowy, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on September 19, 2017, was considered by Timothy Q. Feeley, J. Russell C. Sobelman for the defendant. Kenneth E. Steinfield, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. 1 As is our custom, we spell the defendant's name as it appears on the indictments. 2 GAZIANO, J. In the early morning hours of September 27, 2011, three robbers broke into a restaurant by climbing through a rooftop ventilation shaft. Once inside, the robbers encountered the sixty-two year old victim, restaurant owner Shui Woo, who had slept in his office that night. One robber, later identified as the defendant, struck the victim, bound his feet and hands, and ordered him to open a safe. When the victim failed to do so, the robbers beat him to death with a crowbar and a hammer. A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony-murder, stealing by confining or putting in fear, and armed assault with intent to murder a person age sixty or older. In this direct appeal, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional rights to a competent interpreter to interpret the trial proceeding into his native language. He argues also that he is entitled to a new trial because trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; several jury instructions were erroneous; and the trial judge abused his discretion in making certain rulings concerning the conduct of the trial. In addition, the defendant asks this court to use our extraordinary power under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the verdict or to order a new trial. For the reasons that follow, 3 we affirm the convictions and decline to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Prior proceedings. In December 2011, a grand jury returned indictments charging the defendant, Cheng Sun (Sun), and Jun Di Lin (Lin) with murder, G. L. c. 265, § 1; stealing by confining or putting in fear (stealing), G. L. c. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals