Commonwealth v. Miranda
Annotate this CaseAppellant was convicted of murder in the second degree and other offenses. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion for relief from unlawful restraint pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(a). The superior court denied the motion. Appellant sought direct appellate review. At issue before the Supreme Judicial Court was whether, on direct appeal, the Court properly applied Commonwealth v. Zanetti to determine that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Appellant’s motion for relief from unlawful restraint, holding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to convict Appellant, and the application of Zanetti to Appellant’s case did not violate ex post facto principles or Appellant's due process rights.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.