Commonwealth v. Zezima
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court; November 6, 1980; Massachusetts; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant's convictions for second degree murder and other crimes, concluding that the case did not warrant a new trial or a lesser verdict under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. The defendant later sought a new trial in 1979, citing constitutional errors in jury instructions. This appeal challenges the denial of that motion on two grounds: (1) the Commonwealth did not bear the burden to prove the absence of self-defense, and (2) the jury was improperly influenced by a presumption regarding malice that shifted the burden of proof from the prosecution. Under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, appeals from the denial of new trial motions in capital cases can only proceed if approved by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court on the grounds of presenting a new and substantial question. The defendant did not obtain this approval, which is critical given the precedent indicating that similar claims of error lack substantial merit for appellate review. The court found that the evidence did not necessitate additional self-defense or provocation instructions beyond what was provided. It held that the jury was properly instructed regarding the burden of proof on essential elements of the crimes charged. The court also determined that the jury received adequate information on possible verdicts and that the instructions on malice, despite referencing a presumption, correctly conveyed the law and allowed the jury to draw reasonable inferences based on the circumstances of the case. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the failure to meet procedural requirements and the lack of substantial questions warranting further review.