Commonwealth v. Villanueva
Massachusetts Appeals Court
1Opinion of the Court
*906On appeal the defendant claims that the judge’s misstatement was per se reversible error. Citing Commonwealth v. Chotain, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 336 (1991), she argues that removing an issue from the jury’s consideration constituted a structural defect in the trial requiring automatic reversal.
The defendant misunderstands the structural defect doctrine. A structural error is one that so infringes on a defendant’s right to the basic components of a fair trial that it can never be considered harmless. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309 (1991). Such errors include, for example, deprivation…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Commonwealth v. FreemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
- Commonwealth v. TannerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
- Commonwealth v. JohnsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Commonwealth v. ChotainMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. DancyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2009
- Commonwealth v. LittleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2009
- Commonwealth v. CaramanicaMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2000
- Commonwealth v. GrissettMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2006
- Commonwealth v. McGheeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2015
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.