Commonwealth v. Crouse

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant could challenge on appeal an adverse ruling permitting impeachment with prior convictions even though he did not testify.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in allowing the Commonwealth to use the defendant's prior convictions for impeachment.
3. Whether the challenged evidence concerning the defendant's probation status, prior bad acts, drug-related conduct, a bathing suit, a plastic bag of white powder, expert testimony concerning fire-alarm timing, and a canine accelerant alert was admissible or prejudicial.
4. Whether limiting cross-examination of a prosecution witness concerning the timing of discovery disclosures violated the defendant's right to present a defense and cross-examine witnesses.
5. Whether the prosecutor's opening and closing remarks constituted reversible misconduct.
6. Whether the court should order a new trial or reduce the murder conviction under its statutory authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. Massachusetts will not adopt the Luce rule barring a defendant who did not testify from challenging an adverse ruling on impeachment by prior convictions. Because the defendant did not renew the motion during trial, however, review was limited to whether there was a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
2. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in permitting the defendant's prior convictions to be used for impeachment if he testified.
3. Most challenged evidentiary rulings were proper, but admission of the bathing suit was error; the error did not require reversal because it did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
4. The trial judge properly permitted a fire-cause-and-origin expert to testify about the approximate time between ignition and activation of the fire alarm.
5. The trial judge properly admitted testimony that a qualified accelerant-detection dog alerted to the defendant's vehicle even though laboratory testing did not confirm gasoline in that precise area.
6. The judge acted within his discretion in preventing defense counsel from asking the rebuttal witness about discovery materials provided after the witness's stated cutoff period.
7. The prosecutor's challenged remarks about disposal of the victim's body and the danger posed by the fire were not reversible misconduct.
8. The court found no basis to order a new trial or reduce the defendant's murder conviction to a lesser degree of guilt.

Key quotations

Factual background

The Commonwealth alleged that Crouse raped and murdered a fourteen-year-old victim in a condominium function room, set a gasoline fire to destroy evidence, and buried her body in Hooksett, New Hampshire. Evidence included surveillance footage showing Crouse obtaining gasoline, blood and possible accelerant-related evidence from his vehicle, the victim's remains and shovels found near the burial site, and testimony from a fellow inmate that Crouse admitted the crimes. Crouse did not testify and argued that he was not the killer, that he had left for New Hampshire before the fire, and that the inmate learned crime details from discovery materials in Crouse's jail cell.

Procedural history

A jury in the Superior Court convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree under theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and of arson of a dwelling. On appeal, represented by new counsel, the defendant challenged the denial of his motion in limine concerning impeachment by prior convictions, several evidentiary rulings, a limitation on cross-examination concerning discovery disclosures, and prosecutorial remarks. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected the claims, independently reviewed the murder conviction under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and affirmed the judgments.