Commonwealth v. Broom
474 Mass. 486
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Victim found raped and strangled in her apartment on Nov. 21, 2011; body and clothing contained sperm/DNA matching only defendant (statistical probabilities extremely strong).
- Defendant had lived across the hall earlier in 2011; alleged consensual sexual encounters with victim the night before murder; daughter testified family was alone.
- Police obtained 31 days of the defendant's CSLI via an 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) order and later obtained the defendant's phone; CSLI showed location relevant to Nov. 20–21 timeline.
- Police seized the defendant's phone at arrest and, 10 months later, searched its contents pursuant to a warrant authorizing broad extraction of many data categories.
- At trial, DNA, CSLI (focused on Nov. 20–21), and some text-message evidence were used; defendant convicted of first-degree murder (life without parole) and appealed raising Fourth Amendment and procedural claims.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Broom's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 31 days of CSLI obtained under §2703(d) (no warrant) | §2703(d) order complied with statute; CSLI for key days was probative; Augustine I warrant rule not retroactive to cases where issue not preserved at trial | Augustine I requires warrant/probable cause for CSLI; 31-day CSLI lacked probable cause | Augustine I not applied retroactively here because defendant did not raise at trial; only CSLI for Nov. 20–21 was material and probable cause existed for those days; admission not prejudicial |
| Validity of search warrant and probable cause to search phone contents | Warrant application and affidavit supported a search for phone data relevant to investigation | Warrant was overbroad, conclusory, lacked particularized probable cause for phone files; search delayed nearly 10 months | Warrant and affidavit failed to establish particularized probable cause; search should have been suppressed, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence |
| Use at trial of text message (Nov. 24) read for impeachment and referenced in closing | Message impeached defendant's testimony on motive; use was proper and limited | Prosecutor improperly used message for propensity/motive without limiting instruction | Admission was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to strong DNA, CSLI, and testimony; overall conviction stands |
| Judge's handling of juror's written note without showing counsel before instructing jury | Judge summarized note and gave correct instruction; full disclosure risked tainting trial strategy | Defendant entitled to see note and participate in response shaping; procedural error violated rights | It was error to withhold note from counsel at the time, but instruction was accurate, juror became alternate and did not deliberate; error was harmless and not grounds for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (Mass. 2014) (CSLI is a search under art. 14; warrant requirement articulated)
- Commonwealth v. Augustine, 472 Mass. 448 (Mass. 2015) (further discussion of CSLI and warrant standards)
- Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (Mass. 2015) (statutory §2703 compliance may allow limited CSLI production without warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Connolly, 454 Mass. 808 (Mass. 2009) (warrant required for GPS tracking device; discusses tracking privacy principles)
- Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 453 Mass. 102 (Mass. 2009) (probable cause standards for location-related evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Dorelas, 473 Mass. 496 (Mass. 2016) (searches of smart phones require particularized probable cause; warrants must be carefully tailored)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 469 Mass. 531 (Mass. 2014) (harmless-error standard for constitutional trial errors)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (retroactivity framework for new rules of criminal procedure)