COMMONWEALTH vs. ANTHONY CIMINERA (and two companion cases .

COMMONWEALTH vs. ANTHONY CIMINERA (and two companion cases [Note 1].

384 Mass. 807

November 3, 1981

We allowed the defendants' petitions for further appellate review. The defendants claimed that in considering whether extraneous prejudicial information reached the jury, the trial judge and the Appeals Court incorrectly interpreted Commonwealth v. Fidler, 377 Mass. 192 (1979). The defendants also claimed error in the denial of their motions for a new trial.

We have reviewed the entire record. We are in substantial agreement with the reasoning of the Appeals Court. See Commonwealth v.

Page 808

Ciminera, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 101 (1981). We find no reversible error, and we affirm.

Denial of motions for a new trial affirmed.

Judgments of the Superior Court affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

[Note 1] Commonwealth vs. David Jarjura and Commonwealth vs. George Navikauskis.