Commonwealth v. Cassidy
470 Mass. 201
| Mass. | 2014Background
- On November 20–21, 2007, James Madonna was found shot to death in a parking lot; he suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the head and neck and died of those wounds.
- Timothy Cassidy (defendant) was convicted by a jury in 2012 of first‑degree murder on an extreme atrocity/cruelty theory; the jury rejected premeditation theory; judgment affirmed on appeal.
- Physical evidence: .40 cal shell casings and projectiles at the scene; cigarette butts with DNA matching Cassidy; Cassidy owned a .40 cal semiautomatic pistol (later recovered in 2009); ballistics linked casings to Cassidy’s pistol.
- Prosecution evidence of consciousness of guilt: inconsistent statements, flight to Georgia after arrest, use of aliases, attempts to fabricate/plant evidence and to have the gun planted on another person.
- Defense theory: Cassidy testified that Kevin Hayes (and others) arranged a drug transaction and that Hayes shot the victim; defense sought to present Bowden (inadequate investigation) and third‑party culprit evidence, and to rebut consciousness‑of‑guilt inferences.
- The trial judge excluded multiple proffers (layered hearsay, speculative matters, and evidence not shown to have been known to police); defendant claims cumulative evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial argument, and a jury‑question response deprived him of a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Bowden (inadequate police investigation) evidence | Bowden evidence limited by judge was properly excluded where not shown to have been known to police or was cumulative | Exclusion prevented showing police failed to pursue drug/third‑party leads and impaired defense | Court: Judge’s exclusions within discretion; where information already in record or speculative/cumulative, no prejudice |
| Third‑party culprit evidence (Hayes) | Commonwealth argued no substantial connecting link to admit third‑party evidence absent defendant’s testimony | Cassidy argued he had substantial connecting link once he testified he saw Hayes shoot the victim; several proffers still excluded as hearsay/speculation | Court: Once Cassidy testified, some third‑party evidence admissible, but many proffers were layered hearsay or speculative and properly excluded; exclusion harmless |
| Rebuttal to consciousness of guilt evidence (flight, planting gun) | Commonwealth introduced flight, fabrication, and planting evidence as consciousness of guilt | Cassidy sought to admit calls, notes, and other statements to show fear and innocence; sought to explain scheme to plant gun | Court: Much proffered evidence was consciousness‑of‑innocence or speculative/layered hearsay; judge acted within discretion; no prejudicial error |
| Jury question on missing witness (could defense have called Hayes?) and prosecutor remarks | Judge’s response and prosecutor comments shifted burden or invited adverse inference | Cassidy argued judge’s answer and prosecutor’s closing improperly allowed jurors to draw negative inference from not calling Hayes and shifted burden | Held: Judge’s supplemental instruction, read in context of full charge, did not shift burden or permit adverse inference; prosecutor’s remarks addressed weakness of defense and did not create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (describing standard for reciting facts jury could have found)
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (Bowden defense: challenge to adequacy of police investigation)
- Commonwealth v. Silva‑Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (standards for third‑party culprit and Bowden evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Ridge, 455 Mass. 307 (Bowden evidence and limits on hearsay for that defense)
- Commonwealth v. Bizanowicz, 459 Mass. 400 (admissibility of statements offered to show police did not take reasonable investigative steps)
- Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (factors for murder in the first degree based on extreme atrocity or cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Salentino, 449 Mass. 657 (missing‑witness instruction and adverse inference principles)
- Commonwealth v. Alammani, 439 Mass. 605 (cumulative evidence and harmlessness)
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 444 Mass. 550 (harmless error review)