Commonwealth v. Brescia, 471 Mass. 381

Background

Defendant James Brescia was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder and conspiracy for hiring Scott Foxworth to target a man Brescia believed was involved with his wife; Foxworth later was convicted separately of murder.
Brescia testified at trial that he paid Foxworth $1,000 to threaten or beat (not kill) the victim, later tried to stop the arrangement and sought repayment; prosecution emphasized numerous pay‑phone calls, $1,000 cash payment, and motive.
Brescia testified over two days; between those days he suffered an ischemic stroke (occurring the night between sessions) that went undetected at the time; his second‑day testimony showed marked impairment in comprehension, word‑finding, and responsiveness.
The jury was never informed of the stroke and convicted; Brescia moved for a new trial arguing incompetence at a critical stage, invalid waiver of presence, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek competency testing or a mistrial.
The motion judge held a four‑day evidentiary hearing, found the stroke had materially impaired Brescia’s demeanor and testimony (affecting credibility assessments), rejected constitutional claims but granted a new trial under Mass. R. Crim. P. 30(b) because “justice may not have been done.”
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the motion judge did not abuse discretion in ordering a new trial given the centrality of Brescia’s credibility and the stroke’s likely adverse effect on the jury’s assessment.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Brescia's Argument	Held
Whether a new trial requires a specific standard (e.g., substantial risk of miscarriage) when no preserved constitutional error or newly discovered evidence exists	New trial should be granted only on a substantial‑risk‑of‑miscarriage or newly discovered evidence standard	Motion judge may apply broad discretionary Rule 30(b) standard — whether "justice may not have been done" — in case‑specific review	SJC: Rule 30(b)'s broad discretionary standard governs; specialized standards guide but do not displace the Rule 30(b) inquiry
Whether Brescia's undiagnosed stroke during testimony rendered trial fundamentally unfair (warranting new trial)	Stroke was known to judge/attorneys only after verdict; evidence not newly discovered and Commonwealth’s case was strong so no miscarriage established	Stroke materially impaired Brescia’s demeanor on direct issue of credibility; jury unaware, prosecution emphasized that demeanor; unfairness could have affected outcome	SJC: Motion judge reasonably found stroke impaired Brescia's apparent credibility on core issues; ordering new trial under Rule 30(b) was not an abuse of discretion
Whether Brescia was incompetent at a critical stage or validly waived presence at the end of trial	Trial judge and counsel reasonably concluded competence and valid waiver; no constitutional error	Competency and waiver challenged because impairment occurred between testimony days and was not diagnosed	Motion judge correctly found defendant competent overall and waiver valid; constitutional claims rejected
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not seeking competency exam, waiving presence, or moving for mistrial	Counsel’s actions were reasonable; no deficient performance demonstrated	Counsel should have sought medical evaluation and not waived presence or continued without moving for mistrial	Motion judge found no constitutional ineffective‑assistance error; relief rested on Rule 30(b) fairness ground

Key Cases Cited

Lombardi v. Commonwealth, 378 Mass. 612 (amnesia standard: whether defendant received a fair trial; case‑by‑case factors)
Pring‑Wilson v. Commonwealth, 448 Mass. 718 (postconviction judge may grant new trial in interests of justice even absent trial error)
Cowels v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 607 (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Adjutant v. Commonwealth, 443 Mass. 649 (evidentiary rules and posttrial considerations affecting fairness)
Wright v. Commonwealth, 469 Mass. 447 (standard of review for grant/denial of new trial motion)
Grace v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 303 (newly discovered evidence: what would be a real factor in jury deliberations)