Commonwealth v. Andrade
468 Mass. 543
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Victim was shot twice in the head on January 20, 2010; both wounds fatal; one showed stippling indicating an intermediate range shot.
- Witnesses saw two young men leave the scene; one wore a brown canvas jacket. A .380 casing and projectiles were recovered; ballistics linked scene projectile to autopsy projectile.
- Defendant (Seth Andrade) was linked by: Edwin Jorge’s testimony that Andrade admitted shooting the victim and demonstrated the shots; police recovery of a brown jacket from Solano’s home with gunshot residue; and a recorded custodial statement in which Andrade acknowledged being at the scene and referenced a “finishing” shot.
- Defense argued another person shot the victim, attacked Edwin’s credibility, and presented a chemist challenging the Commonwealth’s gunshot-residue testing controls.
- Jury convicted Andrade of first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and unlawful possession of a firearm; on appeal he raised errors in juror voir dire, redirect of an immunized witness, and prosecutor’s closing argument; the court also conducted a G. L. c. 278, § 33E review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire questioning on absence of eyewitnesses | Commonwealth sought to ensure jurors could convict on circumstantial evidence | Andrade argued questions biased selection toward jurors predisposed to convict and invaded jury province | Questions permissible; judge did not abuse discretion though practice discouraged; proper instructions cured risk |
| Redirect of immunized witness (Edwin) | Prosecutor rehabilitated witness after cross that suggested fabrication for benefits | Andrade argued question invited witness to vouch for his testimony and prosecutor vouched for witness | Redirect was proper rehabilitation; not improper vouching; judge instructed jury on immunity and credibility |
| Prosecutor’s closing about order of wounds and bolstering Edwin | Commonwealth argued inference from medical testimony plus Andrade’s statements and Edwin’s demo warranted argument | Andrade argued prosecutor misstated ME’s testimony and used it to bolster Edwin | No prejudicial error; prosecutor corrected himself and relied on reasonable inferences from evidence |
| G. L. c. 278, § 33E review | N/A (court review) | Andrade sought relief under § 33E | Court found no basis for relief; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Gray, 465 Mass. 330 (discusses voir dire on absence of scientific evidence and limits on such questioning)
- Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. 533 (circumstantial evidence can establish guilt; jury instruction guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 406 Mass. 257 (addressing bolstering and questions about witness obligations under plea/immunity deals)
- Commonwealth v. Kebreau, 454 Mass. 287 (permitting rehabilitation on redirect after defendant "opens the door")
- Commonwealth v. Ortega, 441 Mass. 170 (defines improper vouching by prosecutor)
- Commonwealth v. Koumaris, 440 Mass. 405 (closing argument statements that a witness "told you the truth" not improper when credibility put at issue)