George pell appeal judgment summary transcript:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied under Rule 2-7.
3. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is denied under Rule 2-7.
Rule 2-7(a)(2) Application
Plaintiff’s first argument is that the jury did not believe that defendant had any knowledge of, took possession of, or had control over defendant’s property. There is nothing in this opinion to rebut the argument that the verdict was based on circumstantial evidence. See Commonwealth v. Moore, 99 Mass. Super. 243, 258-59 (1989). There is, however, ample 출장 안마evidence and the question of liability is a matter of law. See Commonwealth v. Moore, 99 Mass. Super. 243, 255. Cf. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 136 Mass. 662, 668 (1989). While there is no legal requirement of proof of any element of recklessness in determining the voluntariness of conduct, there is a standard of reasonable doubt that the jury could not reach. Commonwealth v. Moore, 99 Mass. Super. 243, 261, 261. Cf. Commonwealth v. Linn, 166 Mass. 782, 791 (1991); Commonwealth v. Brown, 135 Mass. 567, 567-68. And, contrary to what one reading might interpret the plain language in the appeal judgment, this jury could not reach a finding of culpable negligence on the part of defendant in failing to obSM 카지노serve his responsibilities under Massachusetts law for the protection of his property. State v. Schaffer, 145 Mass. 668 (1988).
Plaintiff argues that although defendant’s failure to secure the necessary security for his safety on his property led the Commonwealth to believe that he did not control the property, defendant’s conduct during the course of the robbery was so careless that he could not control any property. To support this view, appellant’s witnesses testifie샌즈 카지노d that at the time of the crime, they, too, had not even heard or seen the robbery before it occurred. On direct examination, appellant testified that he had not used his cell phone. As to whether defendant had control over the equipment, appellant himself testified that he “cannot imagine” how he could have. The witnesses also acknowledged that, even as they watched the scene, they did not realize that, unless they were very close, they would not be able to see the victims as they fled. Also, while witnesse
Comments