142 N.E.3d 60
Mass.2020Background
- On September 6, 2010, Angel Acevedo and Jenret Appleberry were shot and killed in their Chelsea apartment; Luis Rodriguez (roommate) was forced at gunpoint by the defendant, Steven Andre, to search the apartment and saw the victims' bodies.
- Andre was arrested after Rodriguez identified him; items taken from the apartment (including a PS3 and jewelry) were later recovered from Andre's residence and linked to the victims.
- Police obtained initial search warrants based on Rodriguez's statements; Rodriguez initially gave inconsistent accounts (suggesting two masked shooters) but on September 11 identified Andre as acting alone; State Trooper Sweeney omitted Rodriguez’s and his son’s earlier inconsistent statements from affidavits for five later warrants.
- Andre moved to suppress evidence seized under those five warrants, arguing Franks-based material omissions; the motion judge denied suppression and the trial judge admitted evidence including a Sony PS3 account memorandum and testimony that Andre had been seen with firearms a week earlier.
- The jury convicted Andre of two counts of first-degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and related charges; he was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal Andre challenged the suppression ruling, the PS3 memorandum’s admission and related jury instruction, firearms testimony and instruction, and several prosecutor statements in closing.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Andre's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrants despite omissions (Franks challenge) | Omissions did not show knowing/reckless falsity and did not negate probable cause | Omissions of Rodriguez's and son's prior inconsistent statements were material and warranted a Franks hearing and suppression | Court: No Franks relief; even if omissions were reckless, inclusion would not have negated probable cause; suppression denial affirmed |
| Admissibility of PS3 account memorandum (business records) | PS3 printout was a verbatim copy of Sony's electronic business record made before litigation and admissible | Printout created after litigation and at police request is not regular-course business record and is hearsay | Court: Electronic record satisfied business-records exception; verbatim printout admissible; judge did not abuse discretion |
| Jury instruction on business-record foundations | No separate preliminary jury finding needed; jury may weigh foundation as to weight | Judge should have instructed jury on the four foundational factors before considering the record | Court: Trial judge erred by not giving guidance, but error was harmless; weight issues for jury, not admissibility determinations |
| Admission of firearms-acquaintance testimony and limiting instruction | Testimony relevant to access/familiarity with guns; limiting instruction given | Testimony was prior-bad-act evidence, dissimilar to murder weapon, prejudicial; instruction misstated purpose | Court: Admission within discretion; limiting instructions adequate overall; any misstatement did not create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks (various alleged improprieties) | Remarks were fair responses to defense tactics and proper argument; judge's instructions cured any excess | Remarks disparaged right to counsel, asked jury to convict despite doubt about others, and appealed to sympathy | Court: Remarks permissible in context; no prejudicial error; jurors presumed to follow instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (establishes two‑part test for warrant-affidavit falsity/omission and entitlement to a hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Long, 454 Mass. 542 (Mass. 2009) (applies Franks framework in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 449 Mass. 207 (Mass. 2007) (standard of review for suppression rulings: accept subsidiary findings, review legal conclusions independently)
- Wingate v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 385 Mass. 402 (Mass. 1982) (business records are presumed reliable and admissible)
- Beal Bank, SSB v. Eurich, 444 Mass. 813 (Mass. 2005) (trial court's admission of records implies requisite business‑record findings)
- United States v. Burgos‑Montes, 786 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2015) (electronic business records and printouts may be admitted as business records even if printed for litigation)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (Mass. 2014) (framework for admissibility and balancing of prior bad‑acts evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Vazquez, 478 Mass. 443 (Mass. 2017) (firearms evidence may be admissible to show access or familiarity with weapons)