Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for murder in the first degree and aggravated rape. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated rape charge, including the absence of consent, and rejected challenges to the grand-jury proceedings and the motion for a required finding of not guilty. The court also addressed the admission of prior relationship evidence, the victim’s statements concerning her state of mind, and confrontation and hearsay issues.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the aggravated-rape indictment should have been dismissed because the evidence presented to the grand jury was insufficient to establish probable cause that the sexual intercourse was nonconsensual.
- Whether the felony-murder theory was invalid because the grand jury allegedly lacked sufficient evidence of lack of consent.
- Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support convictions for aggravated rape and felony-murder predicated on aggravated rape.
- Whether evidence concerning the victim's prior relationship with the defendant, abuse prevention order, and statements about the defendant was inadmissible hearsay, prior-bad-acts evidence, or testimonial evidence violating the Confrontation Clause.
- Whether the prosecutor's closing argument misstated the evidence, improperly characterized DNA evidence, or improperly used propensity evidence.
- Whether relief was warranted under the court's plenary review authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Holdings
- The motion to dismiss the aggravated-rape indictment was properly denied because the grand jury heard sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the defendant committed aggravated rape, including evidence from which it could infer that the victim did not consent.
- The defendant could not obtain dismissal of the felony-murder theory based on the alleged insufficiency of evidence of lack of consent because he did not challenge the murder indictment in the trial court and a murder indictment using the statutory form charged murder regardless of the particular theory presented to the grand jury.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to sexual or unnatural sexual intercourse with the defendant.
- The victim's statements and related evidence were admissible, when limited to showing her state of mind and whether she would have consented to intercourse, because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted and were relevant to the issue of consent.
- The abuse prevention order and related summons were properly admitted, with limiting instructions, to show the nature of the relationship between the victim and defendant and the defendant's motive to kill.
- The victim's affidavit and statements to her brother should not have been admitted to prove the defendant's motive or the nature of the parties' relationship, but the errors were harmless and did not warrant reversal.
- The prosecutor's closing argument did not require reversal because the challenged arguments either fairly tracked the evidence or, although improper in part, were not sufficiently prejudicial to create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
Key quotations
“fundamental fairness requires that an indictment be dismissed where the “grand jury receive[s] no evidence of criminality on the part of the accused”” (404)
“The evidence of lack of consent, though circumstantial, was very powerful, and supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim did not consent to sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse with the defendant.” (406)
“The evidence admitted with the limitation that it could be considered as to the victim’s state of mind and whether she would have consented to sexual intercourse with the defendant was not inadmissible hearsay because it was not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted.” (410)
Factual background
The victim and the defendant had previously lived together and continued to operate neighboring businesses after the victim obtained an abuse prevention order against him. Shortly before the victim disappeared, the defendant learned that she was dating another man, confronted them angrily, and expressed jealousy and a desire to resume the relationship. The victim disappeared from her salon on February 13, 2008; her body was later found in the trunk of her car, and the medical evidence indicated death by smothering and compression of the airway. DNA evidence connected the defendant to sexual contact with the victim and to chewing gum found on her clothing, while other circumstantial evidence connected him to the disappearance and concealment of her body.
Procedural history
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder predicated on aggravated rape, as well as aggravated rape. The trial judge denied the defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss and motion for a required finding of not guilty, admitted certain evidence concerning the victim's relationship with the defendant, and denied a motion for mistrial based on closing argument. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed all judgments and declined to reduce the murder conviction or order a new trial under § 33E.