'Gay Panic’ Slay Rap Upheld

[kweerwolf]

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts unanimously affirmed a first-degree murder conviction in a case where the defendant unsuccessfully presented a “homosexual panic” defense.

Justice Robert J. Cordy wrote the opinion issued by the court on August 9, upholding the conviction of Christopher Cutts for the 1998 murder of John Gallina in Springfield. Cutts claimed he acted out of a compulsion sparked by having been raped in prison years earlier.

According to Cordy’s opinion, Gallina, 47, and Cutts, then 31, were drug buddies who smoked crack together. Statements Cutts had made to police after being apprehended, statements he made to others admitted at the trial, and forensic evidence convinced the jury that Cutts had murdered Gallina in Gallina’s home sometime between March 9 and March 13, 1998, when the body was found by a childhood friend who entered the house after Gallina had failed to answer phone calls for several days. The jury found that Cutts was capable of understanding what he was doing at the time.

Cutts told police that he and Gallina were both high on crack cocaine in Gallina’s kitchen when Gallina, who was gay, tried to initiate sex with him. Claiming to have experienced “a flashback about prison and about when I was raped,” according to Cordy’s summary, Cutts admitted to police that when Gallina turned his back, he wrapped a white rope around the gay man’s throat, struck him in the head twice with a vise, and then pushed a gear shift into his ear. Stealing Gallina’s TV and stereo and attempting to set fire to his house, Cutts left his victim to die. Cutts then sold the stolen goods for crack money and fled the state.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_433/gaypanicslayrap.html

It's good to see courts ruling against the 'gay panic' defense that so many scumbags have tried to use to justify gay-bashings. Using gay panic as a defense is the equivalent of acquitting a woman who blows away a guy who won't quit hitting on her at a bar.

[Autumn Colors]

1. Hey....

Isn't it common knowledge that after you kill someone in a state of panic, you then of course steal their TV and stereo before leaving the crime scene? :sarcasm:

[swimmernsecretsea]

2. What a great ready-made excuse.

Useful for a multitude of things, including denying job opportunities, vandalism, and murder. Just think--straight teens and men all over now have a convenient excuse for all manner of malfeasance. Can we get one, too?

[iamjoy]

3. Don't Breathe Too Easily, Yet

I mean, this seems encouraging, but I am still going to be pessimistic.

1) This was Massachusetts, a state more tolerant than most.

2) Drugs were involved. Plus, the man was a thief, the fact that he stole the victim's stuff for drug money undermines any panic or self defense motive. Overall, I would think the jury might not have been as sympathetic to the murderer as you would expect.

Now, lets say you have a case with a self professed Christian man in some rural parts of Montana, or Kansas or one of those very red states. A jury there might be less sympathetic to the victim and more inclined to acquit the murderer.

[mitchtv]

7. Ah, but a question arises

In Kansas, will the jury's desire for a death penalty outweigh said sympathy? presuming of course, that a death penalty is easier to obtain there than in MA.

[iamjoy]

9. Good Question

I guess it depends on the jury. You could have people thinking the gay man "deserved" it.

Don't read anything else into this analogy, but kind of like in the "good old days" in the South. When a white man killed a black man he didn't really have to face justice for it.

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. IMHO it's not quite like that, it's even less valid

I know you will agree with this, but it has to be said for others who might be border line on this issue.

The gay panic defense is an oxymoron; having a panic attack is not a defense (some erroneous court decision to the contrary) for committing deadly violence when a simple phrase would repel the gay suitor ("No thanks").

Additionally, the equivalence would be more like asking someone very religious to wear cotton and nylon in the same garment, which is forbidden in the bible. Again, they could simply decline rather than killing someone, which illustrates why this "defense" should never even once have been allowed by a judge.

Thanks for posting this.

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[BR_Parkway]

5. So, if someone killed a fundie, then claimed it was "repent therapy panic"

think the person could get away with it on the same grounds that the judge allowed 'gay panic'?

[ropi]

6. hahah

that's what i was thinking

[TaleWgnDg]

8. First of all, the criminal defendant's appellate lawyer . . .

.
First of all, the criminal defendant's appellate lawyer . . . threw in the kitchen sink as to legal appellate arguments, all of which an appellate lawyer should do u/ his ethical obligation to do so. The defendant was appealing his convictions and the trial court's rejection of the defendant's request for a new trial.

And, here's what was presented to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) as arguments by the defendant to substantiate his appeal:

"In 1998, a Hampden County jury convicted Christopher Cutts of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder. Cutts was also convicted of armed robbery and arson. On appeal from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial, Cutts argues that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he contends that his trial counsel (1) failed to pursue a defense of lack of criminal responsibility, (2) failed to file a motion to suppress statements he made to the police, (3) failed to challenge the voluntariness of statements he made to two civilian witnesses, (4) failed to object to testimony concerning the length and nature of his prior incarceration, and (5) failed to object to the introduction of a photograph depicting hemorrhages in the victim's eyes. Finally, he asks us (the SJC) to exercise our power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce his conviction to murder in the second degree. After considering Cutts's arguments, and after undertaking a complete review of the trial record pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 33E, we (the SJC) affirm the judgments of conviction and the order denying the motion for a new trial." (boldface emphasis added) http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=15414&sid=120

A part of the above defense arguments at trial and on appeal here included "homosexual panic" . . .

"At trial, Cutts pursued a claim of 'diminished capacity,' contending that his actions were the result of 'homosexual panic,' a recognized psychological condition, exacerbated by a flawed character structure and the ingestion of cocaine. In combination, Cutts argued, these factors negated the elements of intent and premeditation necessary for a conviction of murder in the first degree." http://www.socialaw.com/slip.htm?cid=15414&sid=120

I raise this issue about "homosexual panic" (defense) because "homosexual panic" no matter what you personally may feel about it, is a recognized psychological condition. This court (the SJC) ruled that despite "homosexual panic" being a psychological condition, the defendant had his full mental faculties to make a rational decision between right and wrong but went ahead and deliberately and willfully killed that guy anyway.

Finally, "homosexual panic" is an illness that is, typically, a part of a more serious mental illness found in the DSM-IV, all of which must be diagnosed by a competent licensed psychiatrist or psychologist. However, such a diagnosis may be challenged in a court of law as it was here and be defeated as it was in this criminal case!

.