Commonwealth v. Terrance Montgomery

Summary

The court held that the prosecutor's question asking prospective jurors whether they could convict without forensic evidence, particularly when coupled with anticipated eyewitness testimony, was improper because it sought to commit jurors to a verdict in advance. Because the defendant did not object, the court reviewed the error for a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice and concluded that the strong eyewitness evidence, repeated jury instructions, and trial judge's assessment of juror impartiality defeated that claim. The court therefore affirmed both the murder conviction and the denial of the motion for a new trial.