Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2019
6 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“An established route for the petitioner to obtain appellate review of the denial of his motion for postconviction discovery [and the other motions ancillary to his motion for a new trial] would be in connection with an appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial.”
¶1
The Commonwealth represents that it produced copies of the recorded conversations prior to trial. It appears, however, that the recordings are not available to Tavares or his counsel. Although the Commonwealth is under no obligation to produce any postconviction discovery unless it is ordered to do so under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (4), as appearing in
435 Mass. 1501
(2001), it is difficult to see any harm to the Commonwealth in producing a new copy of material it previously produced.
¶2
Paulo Tavares appeals from a judgment of the county court denying his petition for relief under G. L. c. 211, § 3. We affirm the judgment.
¶3
Tavares has been convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and other offenses. Before trial, Tavares successfully moved to suppress evidence of surreptitiously recorded conversations between him and a confidential informant. We affirmed the suppression order on the Commonwealth's interlocutory appeal.
Commonwealth
v.
Tavares
,
459 Mass. 289
, 303,
945 N.E.2d 329
(2011). After he was convicted, Tavares moved for a new trial and for postconviction discovery of copies or transcripts of the recorded conversations.
1
The trial judge denied both motions. Tavares's appeal from his convictions and from the denial of his posttrial motions is pending in this court and has not yet been briefed. In his G. L. c. 211, § 3, petition, Tavares sought relief from the denial of his motion for postconviction discovery. A single justice of this court denied the petition as well as a subsequent motion for reconsideration.