Crime & Safety
Conviction In 1991 Worcester Slaying Upheld By SJC
Curtis Johnson has been convicted twice in a 1991 shooting that left one person dead and two others wounded.
WORCESTER, MA — The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has upheld a murder conviction handed down in a 1991 Worcester triple-shooting that left one person dead.
Curtis Johnson was first found guilty in that shooting in 1992, but the conviction was vacated by the SJC because of an error in jury instructions. Johnson was convicted of murder a second time in 2003, but has since appealed that conviction.
In September 1991, Johnson traveled to Worcester from Springfield with friends. After a night of drinking, Johnson and two other men went to pick up food from the now-closed Ding Ho Dynasty restaurant along Southbridge Street, court records say.
Find out what's happening in Worcesterfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Johnson, who was 18 at the time, got into a fight with a restaurant employee who refused to serve the three men. A patron, Albert Toney, an off-duty Worcester officer, intervened and told Johnson and his friends to leave the restaurant.
When Toney left the restaurant with his friends, Robert Domiano and John Ellison, Johnson ran up to them and opened fire, according to court records. Domiano died at the scene, but Ellison and Toney survived.
Find out what's happening in Worcesterfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
In 2018, a state Superior Court judge denied Johnson's request for a third trial. He appealed to the SJC over several issues: testimony given to a jury by one of Johnson's friends; his "youth and immaturity" at the time of the shooting; a failure to consider his mental health problems; a judge's denial of funds for an expert witness; and leniency given to a prosecution witness who was facing a larceny charge.
The SJC found errors with all of Johnson's arguments for either a vacation of his conviction or a new trial.
"[W]e have reviewed the entirety of the record, pursuant to our duty ... conclude that nothing contained therein warrants an award of extraordinary relief," the justices wrote. "They provide no grounds for relief, and none of them warrants extended discussion."
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.