Commonwealth v. Caramanica

The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of armed robbery while masked, G. L. c. 265, § 17. On appeal, he alleges that (1) the prosecutor’s closing was improper, (2) the judge’s instructions were seriously flawed, and (3) his attorney provided ineffective representation. We reverse on the basis of the defendant’s second claim and so need not address his other arguments.1

We briefly rehearse the cardinal points of the evidence: Elizabeth Haas, the victim, was a cashier at a convenience store: One night while she was alone in the store, a car pulled up, and a woman got out and walked…