Commonwealth v. Caruso
476 Mass. 275
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Victim Sandra Berfield was killed when a pipe bomb in a package exploded upon opening on Jan. 20, 2000; package bore a return name/address matching data found on defendant’s computer.
- Defendant Steven Caruso had a hostile, escalating relationship with the victim (restraining order, two incidents of battery acid in her gas tank, conviction for property destruction).
- Police searched defendant’s home and seized materials (pipe fragments, wires, batteries, ammunition) consistent with bomb components; defendant’s computer contained victim-related files and a family-tree mailing label matching the package return address.
- A jailhouse inmate, Michael Dubis, testified that defendant made detailed incriminating admissions in a cell; defendant moved to suppress claiming Dubis was a government agent.
- Additional disputed evidence: substitute testimony for an unavailable officer about ammunition, expert wire testimony, computer forensic evidence (access timestamps and screen shots), and admission of the victim’s prior courtroom testimony.
- The jury convicted Caruso of first-degree murder (premeditation and extreme atrocity/ cruelty); the SJC affirmed, rejecting defendant’s constitutional and evidentiary challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Caruso's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jailhouse informant Dubis was a government agent such that his elicitation violated Sixth Amendment/art.12 | Dubis acted independently; no arrangement or promises from govt.; placement was happenstance | Dubis had prior contacts/benefits and was an agent who elicited incriminating statements post-arraignment | Not an agent; suppression properly denied — no deliberate elicitation by government (no prearranged benefit or placement) |
| Whether prior-consistent statements could be used to rehabilitate Dubis after impeachment | Prior statements predated alleged motive to fabricate and rebut defendant’s suggestion of recent coaching | Rehabilitation improper absent explicit on-record finding that statements preceded motive to fabricate | Admissible; judge’s implicit finding sufficed; statements predated alleged motive |
| Whether substitute testimony (Arnold for Busa) and use of Busa’s report violated confrontation/expert-cross rules | Arnold based opinion on his examination of boxes; core chemist testimony supported gunpowder link | Defendant lacked meaningful opportunity to cross-examine Busa and underlying report was relied on | No reversible error; Arnold’s reload opinion admissible; testimony to Busa’s report improper but harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility/reliability of electrical wire expert Toto’s methodology | Toto’s training and experience provided a reliable basis; jury could weigh weight | Methodology unreliable; no pretrial Lanigan/Daubert hearing | No preserved Lanigan objection; even if methodology weak, testimony did not create substantial miscarriage of justice |
| Admissibility of computer evidence (last-access timestamps and screen shots) | McLean explained program behavior; timestamps and one family-tree mailing-label screenshot were probative | Timestamps and screen shots unreliable; no proof defendant accessed selected screens; software unreliability | Timestamps admissible as circumstantial time evidence; most screen shots inadmissible but harmless/cumulative; one mailing-label screenshot properly admitted |
| Admission of victim’s prior recorded testimony and limits on using videos to impeach it (confrontation clause) | Prior testimony admissible because declarant unavailable and prior proceedings provided adequate prior cross-examination on similar issues | Admission violated confrontation clause; exclusion of defense videos improperly limited impeachment | Prior testimony admissible under confrontation analysis (oath, counsel, record, similar issues/motive); judge properly excluded dark videos for limited impeachment value |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 448 Mass. 452 (informant-government agent analysis requires prior arrangement or promise)
- Commonwealth v. Harmon, 410 Mass. 425 (past contacts with police do not alone establish agency)
- Commonwealth v. Tevlin, 433 Mass. 305 (jailhouse-informant placement for safety does not necessarily create government agency)
- Moulton v. Maine, 474 U.S. 159 (government must not circumvent right to counsel)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (confrontation clause limits testimonial hearsay)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to technical/specialized expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Canon, 373 Mass. 494 (similarity of issues/motive in prior proceeding can satisfy confrontation analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Hurley, 455 Mass. 53 (five-factor test for adequacy of prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- Commonwealth v. Tassone, 468 Mass. 391 (meaningful opportunity to cross-examine expert required)