Commonwealth v. Bizanowicz
459 Mass. 400
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Joanne and her 12-year-old daughter Alyssa were murdered in January 2004; defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for both victims and aggravated rape of Joanne.
- Defendant's defense claimed a third party, Joanne's landlord Singh, committed the murders and that police investigation was inadequate.
- DNA evidence linked the defendant to semen on Joanne and her clothing; blood under Alyssa’s fingernails yielded a partial match to the defendant.
- CODIS cold hit led to a confirmatory DNA match; statistical evidence showed extremely low probabilities for random matches by population groups.
- A police chemist testified about tests conducted by another chemist, relying on hearsay notes; defense argued confrontation clause issues.
- The trial court excluded certain third-party culprit evidence and related rape-shield/immaterial statements; defendant challenged adequacy of the investigation.
- Prosecutor’s closing included improper sympathy-based and vicarious-implication arguments; a curative instruction was given.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and method for DNA evidence after cold hit | State argues DNA statistics are generally accepted and probative even after cold hit. | Defendant contends RMP issues and ascertainment bias render the evidence unreliable. | No reversible error; DNA evidence properly admitted with appropriate statistical context. |
| Confrontation concerns regarding chemist's testimony | Hagan’s testimony, based on another scientist's report, was admissible as independent opinion. | Hagan relied on hearsay reports; violated confrontation rights. | Error in admitting hearsay-based statements; but overall conviction not harmed given overwhelming evidence. |
| Admissibility of third-party culprit/inadequate investigation evidence | Evidence of Singh and related investigation would support an inadequate police-investigation defense and third-party culprit theory. | Exclusion of such evidence prevented a full defense against Singh as killer. | Judge did not abuse discretion; evidence lacked substantial connecting links and was too speculative. |
| Prosecutor's closing arguments and potential miscarriage of justice | Some closing remarks were improper but within trial context. | Improper arguments could have misled jurors and caused a miscarriage. | Not a basis for new trial; curative instruction issued, and evidence of guilt overwhelming. |
| Duplication and sufficiency of guilty verdicts for rape | Convictions on felony-murder and extreme atrocity and cruelty support the aggravated rape judgment. | Potential duplicative theory could affect consistency of convictions. | Affirmed; the aggravated rape judgment is not duplicative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Felder, 455 Mass. 359 (2009) ((affirms non-duplication of aggravated rape judgment when murder convictions carry multiple theories))
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 441 Mass. 199 (2004) ((addressing duplicative theories in murder convictions))
- Commonwealth v. Rosier, 425 Mass. 807 (1997) ((DNA evidence admissibility and statistical context))
- Commonwealth v. Gaynor, 443 Mass. 245 (2005) ((DNA evidence admissibility and methodology))
- Commonwealth v. Mathews, 450 Mass. 858 (2008) ((admissibility of DNA evidence with statistical data))
- Commonwealth v. Avila, 454 Mass. 744 (2009) ((confrontation and hearsay considerations for expert testimony))
- Commonwealth v. Ridge, 455 Mass. 307 (2009) ((inadequate police investigation defense; admissibility of Bowden-type evidence))
- Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (2009) ((Bowden and third-party culprit evidence balancing test))
- Commonwealth v. Beaudry, 445 Mass. 577 (2005) ((curtailing improper sympathy-based arguments in closing))