1 On appeal, the defendant argues that defense counsel should have vigorously sought to exclude such similar statements because they constituted impermissible opinion evidence describing the defendant's state of mind, thereby relieving the Commonwealth from having to prove the defendant's intent, an element of the two charges involving kidnapping. The victim's testimony was littered with statements to the effect that the defendant had “tried to take” her. We examine each aspect of the defendant's argument in turn.Ī. Victim's testimony. It is particularly significant that the defendant has not shown that “better work might have accomplished something material for the defense.” Commonwealth v. Nor did the affidavits submitted in support of his motion present any substantial issues that warranted an evidentiary hearing. The defendant's trial counsel's performance did not fall below the standard articulated in Commonwealth v. The defendant makes a variety of arguments concerning his attorney's purported ineffectiveness. Initially, we will address the core issues raised on appeal in summary fashion, and then treat the defendant's claim of duplicative convictions in more extensive detail.ġ. Ineffective assistance. The defendant's appeal from these convictions would be rather unremarkable, but for the often troublesome question of duplicative convictions.

In the motion, the defendant also presented additional claims under the rubric of ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant appealed and filed a motion for a new trial. Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.Īfter a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping, assault with the intent to commit a felony (kidnapping), and assault and battery.

2006 gallant