Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed Amos Don's convictions for first-degree murder and related offenses, together with the denials of his motions for a new trial and reconsideration. The court rejected claims concerning newly discovered medical records, ineffective assistance of counsel, and admission of evidence regarding prior failed firearm purchases. It affirmed the convictions and postconviction rulings and declined extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether additional medical records obtained after trial constituted newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial or an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain complete medical records, consult or present experts concerning Garcia's injuries and ability to respond to police questioning, challenge the Commonwealth's ballistics evidence, or develop a third-party culprit defense.
- Whether the trial judge reversibly erred by admitting evidence of Don's prior unsuccessful attempts to purchase firearms that were not the murder weapon.
- Whether extraordinary relief under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 278, section 33E was warranted.
Holdings
- The additional medical records did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because the existence of potentially missing records was reasonably discoverable from materials available to trial counsel before trial.
- Counsel's failure to obtain largely redundant medical records or present expert testimony concerning the location and trajectory of Garcia's gunshot wound did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
- Counsel's failure to present neurological expert testimony challenging Garcia's ability to respond reliably to police questions did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
- Counsel's failure to challenge the Commonwealth's approximate bullet-trajectory evidence through cross-examination or countervailing expert testimony did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
- The failure to further investigate or present evidence that Garcia was a DEA informant or had enemies in the drug trade did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
- The trial judge did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence of Don's prior attempts to obtain firearms because the evidence was admitted for permissible nonpropensity purposes, and the limiting instructions sufficiently guided the jury.
- The court declined to grant extraordinary relief to order a new trial or reduce or set aside the first-degree murder verdict.
Key quotations
“In order to constitute "newly discovered" evidence under Grace, the records must have been "unknown to the defendant or his counsel and not reasonably discoverable by them at the time of trial."” (at 13)
“Evidence that a third-party culprit committed the crime is admissible "if the judge determine[s] that it ha[s] 'a rational tendency to prove the issue the defense raises' and [it is] not 'too remote or speculative.'"” (at 27)
“Evidence of prior bad acts is generally inadmissible to show a defendant's propensity to commit a crime.” (at 30)
Factual background
On August 25, 2009, Erica Field and Shameek Garcia were shot at close range while seated in a parked vehicle in Boston; Field died and Garcia survived. The evidence showed that Don had traveled from Maine to Boston with the victims, had a motive related to missing heroin and an unpaid drug debt, and had made prior attempts to obtain firearms. Cell-site records placed him near the crime scene, fingerprints connected him to the vehicle, and Garcia repeatedly identified the shooter as "Ace," Don's known name, immediately after the shooting.
Procedural history
Indictments were returned in the Superior Court Department on March 30, 2010. After a jury trial before Judge Christine M. McEvoy, Don was convicted of murder in the first degree, armed assault with intent to murder, aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and unlicensed possession of a firearm. He later filed a motion for a new trial alleging newly discovered medical records and ineffective assistance of counsel; the motion was denied by Judge Peter M. Lauriat. Reconsideration was denied by Judge Christine M. Roach, and the resulting appeals were consolidated with the direct appeal.