Commonwealth v. Butler
90 Mass. App. Ct. 599
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Quincy Butler and codefendant William Wood were tried jointly on a joint-venture theory for crimes arising from an abortive kidnapping/robbery that resulted in the victim’s death; Butler was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses; Wood was convicted of first-degree murder.
- Wood’s convictions were affirmed by the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266 (2014).
- Butler challenged jury empanelment, alleging the prosecutor used peremptory strikes discriminatorily to select jurors who resembled the (white female) victim and to avoid jurors who resembled the (African‑American male) defendants.
- At trial the venire included 130 prospective jurors (49 men, 81 women); during selection Butler and Wood objected repeatedly to Commonwealth strikes; the judge found no pattern of discriminatory strikes and did not require the Commonwealth to give race- or gender-neutral reasons.
- The Appeals Court majority affirmed Butler’s convictions, holding the record supported the judge’s discretionary finding that Butler failed to rebut the presumption of proper use of peremptory challenges; several other evidentiary and prosecutorial-argument claims mirrored issues addressed and rejected in Wood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butler) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prima facie Batson/J.E.B. claim (gender or race) was made during jury empanelment | Butler: Prosecutor struck a high proportion of male (and/or black) jurors; this pattern raised an inference of discrimination requiring the Commonwealth to explain strikes | Commonwealth: No pattern of exclusion shown; reasons for some strikes were non-discriminatory and judge observed the process and discretionically found no prima facie case | Court: Affirmed—judge did not abuse discretion; Butler failed to rebut presumption of proper challenge use |
| Whether venire violated fair‑cross‑section requirements | Butler: Venire skewed heavily female early in selection, allegedly underrepresenting men/minorities | Commonwealth: Random selection can produce uneven panels; no evidence of systematic exclusion of a distinctive group | Court: No fair‑cross‑section violation proved; insufficient evidence of systematic exclusion |
| Prosecutor’s closing arguments attacking defendant credibility and referencing witnesses | Butler: Prosecutor improperly vouched/coached witnesses and improperly attacked Butler’s credibility; requested curative instruction | Commonwealth: Credibility comparisons were grounded in testimony and permissible; judge instructed jury that arguments aren’t evidence | Court: Held prosecutor’s remarks were permissible and judge properly declined curative instruction given instructions and record grounding |
| Exclusion of certain defense evidence & claim of knowing use of false testimony | Butler: Excluded third‑party proof and investigation‑failure evidence deprived him of full defense; prosecution knowingly used false testimony | Commonwealth: Many items excluded were cumulative or irrelevant; testimony remained consistent and not knowingly false | Court: Adopted Wood reasoning—no reversible error in exclusions and no knowing use of perjured testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266 (review of record and §33E affirmance) (supreme judicial court review of co‑defendant’s first‑degree murder conviction)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
- Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (1979) (peremptory challenges and fair‑cross‑section discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460 (2003) (presumption that peremptory challenges are proper; burden‑shifting framework)
- Commonwealth v. LeClair, 429 Mass. 313 (1999) (deference to trial judge in peremptory‑challenge determinations)