Commonwealth v. Ayala
112 N.E.3d 239
Mass.2018Background
- Early morning June 10, 2007: after being ejected from a house party for refusing a pat-frisk, Ayala threatened to "come back" and "light th[e] place up," kicked in the front door, and was seen pacing outside shortly before a fatal shooting of Clive Ramkissoon.
- Eyewitness Robert Perez observed a muzzle flash near a streetlight, identified Ayala as the shooter (having previously observed him in the stairwell), later picked Ayala’s photo from an array, and performed rescue efforts on the victim; Perez has PTSD and bipolar disorder and used marijuana but no evidence showed impairment at the shooting.
- Defense sole witness N.F., a DJ at the party, testified Ayala left and drove away 30–45 minutes before the shooting; she was later revealed to be a confidential FBI informant whose federal records were sought by defense.
- Police recovered five .22 casings near the streetlight and two projectiles from the victim; ballistics linked the projectiles to the same .22 weapon, but the gun was never recovered.
- Trial: jury convicted Ayala of first-degree murder (premeditation) plus related firearm/ammunition counts; Ayala was sentenced to life without parole and appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence, Brady/dual-sovereignty disclosure issues regarding N.F., and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ayala) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Ayala was shooter | Perez’s on-scene ID, prior observation of Ayala, photo-array ID, circumstantial evidence (threats, door-kicking, pacing, casings near streetlight) support conviction | Perez’s ID unreliable because illumination from muzzle flash is not common knowledge; identification possibly transferrable from earlier encounter | Affirmed: evidence (direct + circumstantial) sufficient under Latimore standard; jury could reasonably infer adequate illumination and reliability of ID |
| Disclosure of federal informant records / subpoenas (Brady/Donahue context) | Commonwealth disclosed N.F.’s informant status; records were in federal, not state, possession and Commonwealth not obligated to obtain them | Failure to secure federal informant records and to compel federal witnesses violated due process and prejudiced defense | Affirmed: federal records were not in Commonwealth’s possession or control; Donahue factors weighed against requiring Commonwealth to obtain federal records; no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to retain/call eyewitness ID expert | Not applicable (Commonwealth defends conviction) | Trial counsel should have called an expert to attack ID (transference, stress, confidence-accuracy) | Denied: decision not to call expert was a reasonable strategic choice at the time and not manifestly unreasonable; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to call ballistics expert & failure to secure additional mental-health records | Commonwealth defends adequacy of counsel performance | Counsel should have called ballistics expert to rebut muzzle-flash illumination and should have noticed missing Perez records to impeach credibility | Denied: even assuming ballistics expert omission was error, other evidence of illumination made it unlikely to affect verdict; missing records were cumulative of trial testimony and would not likely change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Donahue, 396 Mass. 590 (when prosecution may be required to secure federal-held exculpatory material; four-factor test)
- Commonwealth v. Lykus, 451 Mass. 310 (application of Donahue in weighing state burden to obtain federal evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Liebman, 379 Mass. 671 (dual-sovereignty considerations re: access to federal information)
- Commonwealth v. Beal, 429 Mass. 530 (prosecutor's Brady duty limited to possession/control of prosecution team)
- Commonwealth v. Pressley, 390 Mass. 617 ("honest but mistaken identification" jury instruction when ID is crucial)
- Commonwealth v. Penn, 472 Mass. 610 (analysis of prejudice from omission of honest-but-mistaken-ID instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Seino, 479 Mass. 463 (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims in capital-level convictions under G. L. c. 278, § 33E)
- Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 478 Mass. 189 (manifestly unreasonable tactical decisions standard)
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 455 Mass. 246 (failure to seek eyewitness-ID expert sometimes reasonable where ID was vigorously challenged at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 453 Mass. 203 (no prejudice where undisclosed material was cumulative of known evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672 (defendant must show withheld evidence was exculpatory to prevail on nondisclosure claim)