Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Robert Gulla’s convictions for murder in the first degree and violation of an abuse prevention order, as well as the denial of his motion for a new trial. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to pursue a lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense and the allegedly inadequate closing argument. It also found no error in the trial judge’s refusal to instruct the jury on lack of criminal responsibility or voluntary manslaughter and declined relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a lack of criminal responsibility defense or request an instruction on that defense.
- Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue the diminished-capacity defense forcefully enough in closing argument.
- Whether the trial judge was required to instruct the jury sua sponte on lack of criminal responsibility despite counsel's decision not to pursue that defense.
- Whether the evidence warranted the defendant's requested voluntary manslaughter instruction based on sudden combat, reasonable provocation, or heat of passion arising from the victim's alleged infidelity.
- Whether relief was warranted under the Supreme Judicial Court's extraordinary review authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Holdings
- Counsel's decision not to pursue a lack of criminal responsibility defense was not ineffective assistance because the decision was a tactical choice supported by the absence of expert testimony establishing that the defendant lacked criminal responsibility and by the risk that the defense would undermine the diminished-capacity defense.
- Counsel was not ineffective in closing argument because he addressed the defendant's mental illness, difficulty connecting events, alcohol use, and inability to form the intent required for first-degree murder.
- The judge was not required to give the instruction and could reasonably decline to do so where counsel had made a tactical decision not to pursue the defense and the evidence supporting it was scant.
- The trial judge properly denied the requested voluntary manslaughter instruction because the evidence did not support sudden passion caused by reasonable provocation, sudden combat, or excessive force in self-defense.
- The court found no basis to reduce the degree of guilt or grant a new trial under its extraordinary review authority.
Factual background
The defendant beat, strangled, stabbed, and shot the victim on January 23, 2010, killing her. The homicide followed a short and violent relationship marked by repeated altercations, physical abuse, police involvement, and a temporary restraining order obtained three days before the killing. The victim was found dead in the defendant's basement bedroom with severe injuries, while the defendant had less severe injuries, including wounds consistent with attempted suicide and forceful stabbing motions. A note found nearby appeared to admit culpability.
Procedural history
Indictments were returned in the Superior Court Department on March 4, 2010. Following trial before Judge Thomas P. Billings, the defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and violating an abuse prevention order. Judge Billings later denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, and the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed both the convictions and the denial of the new-trial motion.