Commonwealth v. Guy

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Martin Guy’s convictions for murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court upheld the admission of evidence concerning Guy’s interest in serial killings, found no prejudicial error in the prosecutor’s closing argument or the jury’s use of DNA notebooks marked for identification, and rejected challenges based on alleged deficiencies in the Massachusetts State Police crime laboratory. The court also declined to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. The trial judge did not abuse her discretion by admitting evidence that the defendant discussed and read about serial killings because the evidence was relevant to motive, intent, and state of mind and was not unfairly prejudicial or too remote in time.
2. Although the prosecutor improperly referred to the feelings of the victim's family and members of the community, the brief impropriety did not prejudice the defendant and therefore did not warrant a mistrial or reversal.
3. Allowing the jury to use DNA notebooks marked only for identification during deliberations was error, but the error was not prejudicial.
4. The motion for a new trial was properly denied because the newly discovered audit, operational assessment, and magazine article did not undermine the accuracy or reliability of the DNA evidence used at trial.
5. The record presented no basis for granting relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence of the defendant's interest in serial killings was relevant and unfairly prejudicial.
2. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument improperly appealed to the jury's sympathy and required a mistrial.
3. Whether allowing jurors to use DNA notebooks marked only for identification during deliberations was prejudicial error.
4. Whether newly discovered materials concerning deficiencies in the Massachusetts State police crime laboratory warranted a new trial.
5. Whether the record warranted discretionary relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Disposition

affirmed