492 Mass. 381
Mass.2023Background
- On December 31, 2015, Aaron Gant Jr. was fatally shot in the back of the head while seated in the rear of an SUV with three companions; no eyewitnesses, and no ejected shell casings were found at the scene.
- Defendant Angel Acevedo and codefendant Aaron Bookman were affiliated with a West End gang; the victims were affiliated with a rival South End group, and the Commonwealth alleged a retaliatory gang-motivation murder.
- Acevedo rented/drove a white 2016 Ford Fusion from Maine that surveillance and cell‑tower data placed near the SUV minutes before the shooting; ballistics matched projectiles recovered from the victim and a nearby gray sedan, consistent with .38‑caliber/revolver fire.
- Police recovered marijuana and suspected heroin in the SUV and two folded knives (one inside, one outside the vehicle); Acevedo sought to admit those items as third‑party culprit evidence (and to support a Bowden claim about inadequate police investigation), but the judge excluded them.
- The judge admitted testimony that the codefendant had possessed a revolver about eight months earlier; a jury convicted Acevedo and Bookman of first‑degree murder (premeditation) and unlawful possession of a firearm; convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of third‑party culprit evidence (drugs/knives) | Commonwealth: evidence is irrelevant, speculative, prejudicial; no nexus to the homicide | Acevedo: drugs/knives show victims had rival drug‑dealer enemies and support third‑party culprit defense | Exclusion affirmed — proffer was speculative/remote; knives irrelevant; third‑party theory lacked substantial connecting links |
| Exclusion of Bowden (alleged inadequate police investigation) | Commonwealth: no reliable indication police ignored credible third‑party lead; Bowden not shown | Acevedo: drug evidence should show police failed to pursue rival drug‑dealer leads (Bowden) | No abuse — Bowden not established; evidence lacked indicia of reliability; exclusion harmless (preservation addressed but no miscarriage) |
| Admission of codefendant's prior firearm possession | Commonwealth: prior revolver possession relevant to means; revolver not ruled out as murder weapon; probative value outweighs prejudice | Acevedo: admits only familiarity with guns; risks improper propensity inference and guilt by association | Admission affirmed — judge did not abuse discretion; evidence probative (means/accomplice theory) and not unduly prejudicial |
| Request for relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E | N/A (Commonwealth opposes relief) | Acevedo: asks for new trial or reduction of degree of guilt | Denied — after review court found no basis to order new trial or reduce conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (1980) (establishes Bowden rule for adducing evidence that police failed to investigate a third‑party lead)
- Commonwealth v. Silva‑Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (2009) (hearsay third‑party culprit evidence admissible only with relevance and substantial connecting links)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 461 Mass. 438 (2012) (third‑party culprit evidence admissible if relevant and not too remote or speculative)
- Commonwealth v. DePina, 476 Mass. 614 (2017) (victim’s status as drug dealer alone insufficient to support speculative third‑party culprit theory)
- Commonwealth v. Steadman, 489 Mass. 372 (2022) (Bowden voir‑dire requirements and limits on speculative third‑party evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Pierre, 486 Mass. 418 (2020) (prior weapon possession may be admissible to show means to commit the crime)
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 478 Mass. 508 (2017) (standard of review for admission of prior‑bad‑act evidence; review for palpable error)
- Commonwealth v. McGee, 467 Mass. 141 (2014) (uncharged‑misconduct evidence admissible when relevant to means; limiting instructions not always required)
- Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60 (2004) (de novo review applies to exclusion of third‑party culprit evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (1992) (preservation standard; unpreserved claims reviewed for substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice)