BOSTON, April 17, 2015—The state’s appellate courts this week affirmed murder convictions in the unrelated slayings of Jose Lane in Roxbury and Braulio Gomez in Chelsea, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts yesterday rejected an appeal by Lane’s killer, MICHAEL JACKSON (D.O.B. 11/27/84), who challenged his first-degree murder conviction in the 2002 fatal shooting on the steps of the 24-year-old victim’s Creston Street home.

Separately, the Massachusetts Appeals Court on Wednesday denied SANTOS PORTILLO (D.O.B. 7/4/90) in his effort to undo a 2013 second-degree murder conviction in Gomez’ fatal shooting on Central Avenue in 2011.

“Because police and prosecutors work hand in hand on homicides in Suffolk County, we build them with an eye not just to arrest but also to conviction and appeal,” Conley said. “The result is evidence that’s meaningful, reliable, and admissible, and convictions that withstand the scrutiny of the appellate process.”

Evidence introduced at Lane’s 2006 trial showed that Jackson approached his victim, 24-year-old Jose Lane, and another man on the night of Jan. 24, 2002. Jackson pulled out a handgun and fired several shots at Lane, hitting him at least four times. Medical experts testified that several of the bullets were fired in an upward trajectory and struck Lane in the back, indicating that the victim was shot while trying to flee up the stairs and into his home.

Jackson admitted to the shooting in a tape-recorded statement that was played at trial for jurors. Jackson can be heard on the tape telling Boston Police homicide detectives that he planned his route to Lane’s house well in advance of the shooting.

On appeal, Jackson claimed that he was entitled to a duress defense because he had been pressured into committing the murder on behalf of fellow gang members and feared the consequences of disobeying them.

The SJC had previously rejected duress as a defense to murder in its 2012 decision on another Suffolk murder case, Commonwealth v. Vasquez. But where the defendants in that case were adults and Jackson was 17 at the time of the murder, the high court expanded that rejection to include juvenile defendants in general and this defendant in particular.

“Even were we to agree that the standard of reasonableness we would apply to an adult confronted with the fear of death or serious bodily injury might be somewhat different and more forgiving for a person seventeen years of age or younger, this would not justify a duress defense for intentional murder,” Justice Robert Cordy wrote in the 17-page decision. “Aside from our rejection of the defense of duress generally in cases of intentional murder, the elements of the defense were not made out in this case. There was no evidence that the threat against the defendant was ‘immediate’ or that he could not escape or avoid the harm that he alleges was threatened.”

The high court also rejected arguments that the verdict should be set aside because the trial judge learned after the proceedings that one juror may not have been a US citizen and because some of the defendant’s family members were asked to leave the courtroom briefly to accommodate prospective jurors during empanelment.

Portillo, a self-proclaimed member of the MS-13 street gang, was convicted of shooting Gomez after a chance encounter in which the defendant asked the victim and his group what “set” – or gang – they were affiliated with. When Gomez replied that none of them belonged to a gang, Portillo pulled out a handgun, placed it to Gomez’ head, and shot the unarmed man.

Trial testimony established that Portillo and his friends had been drinking on the night of July 15, 2011, and into the morning of July 16, when the murder took place. Portillo’s trial counsel sought and received an instruction on intoxication as a mitigating factor but did not seek an instruction on manslaughter as a potential verdict. His appellate attorney claimed this was in error.

The Appeals Court disagreed, finding that even the intoxication instruction constituted a “windfall” for the defendant because the evidence at trial “did not support a reasonable inference that the defendant was so intoxicated at the time of the incident that he was incapable of forming the necessary intent or possessing the requisite knowledge for the crimes charged,” Justices Elspeth Cypher, Scott Kafker, and Mark Green wrote.

Assistant District Attorney Helle Sachse of the DA’s Appellate Division defended both convictions on appeal.  At trial, Assistant District Attorney Paul Treseler prosecuted Jackson and Assistant District Attorney Amy Galatis prosecuted Portillo. The cases mark the fifth and sixth Suffolk murder convictions to be affirmed this year.

–30–

All defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.