Commonwealth v. Cassino, 474 Mass. 85

Background

Victim found dead from blunt force trauma (baseball bat) in South Boston; defendant Adam Cassino, neighbor, indicted and convicted of first-degree murder (premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty).
Defendant was civilly committed to the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center on Aug. 24, 2011; staff stored his clothing and shoes in the center’s secured property room per facility procedures.
On Aug. 29, 2011, two detectives viewed the defendant’s stored clothing and observed reddish‑brown stains on his shoes; a warrant to seize the shoes issued Aug. 31 and police seized them the same day. Subsequent warrants (Sept. 8) for two residences relied in part on DNA results from the shoes.
DNA testing: victim’s blood/DNA matched stains on defendant’s shoes (very low random-match probabilities); DNA from a baseball bat found at a friend’s house matched the victim and contained a mixture including the defendant; other forensic links and timeline evidence tied defendant to the victim around the time of death.
Defendant moved to suppress (arguing the viewing at the center was an unlawful warrantless search that tainted later warrants), objected to presentation of non‑statistical DNA match evidence, requested a diminished‑capacity instruction based on drug use, and challenged the judge’s ruling refusing to remove a juror for alleged bias. Trial court denied motions; defendant convicted. On appeal, the SJC affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Cassino's Argument	Held
1) Motion to suppress evidence from shoes and derivative warrants	Viewing of stored clothes did not defeat probable cause; even if viewing was unlawful, the warrants were supported by independent probable cause (independent source doctrine)	Viewing of property at treatment center was a warrantless search violating reasonable expectation of privacy; any warrants based on that viewing lacked probable cause and were tainted	Affirmed: affidavit (independent of observed stains) supplied probable cause for the Aug. 31 warrant; independent‑source doctrine renders the shoes and subsequent warrants admissible
2) Admission of DNA results without statistics at trial	DNA report containing statistics was in the record and would have been damaging to defendant; where population statistics would have shown extremely low random‑match probabilities, Mattei concern of misleading jurors is not implicated	Admission of nonexclusion DNA testimony without accompanying statistics is misleading per Mattei and reversible error	Affirmed: statistics were available in the lab report in the appellate record and would have strongly implicated defendant; no reversible error or ineffective‑assistance showing
3) Failure to give diminished‑capacity / mental‑impairment instruction	No request preserved; evidence of impairment was not significant or central; jury had minimal evidence to support such an instruction	Omission deprived jury of ability to consider drug/withdrawal evidence on premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty	Affirmed: no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice — evidence of impairment was minimal and not central to defense
4) Juror bias challenge (voir dire after report of juror comments)	Trial judge conducted voir dire, found jurors credible and outside witness not credible; judge’s credibility determination entitled to deference	Female juror lied about discussing case and should have been excused for cause	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion — judge reasonably found juror impartial based on demeanor and testimony

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Estabrook, 472 Mass. 852 (doctrine allowing admission of evidence later obtained independently despite an earlier illegal search)
Commonwealth v. Gray, 465 Mass. 330 (independent‑source inquiry re: whether affidavit contained probable cause apart from tainted observation)
Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840 (nonexclusion DNA testimony must ordinarily be accompanied by statistical context to avoid juror confusion)
Commonwealth v. Rutkowski, 459 Mass. 794 (when mental‑impairment evidence is significant, jury should be instructed on its relevance to atrocity/cruelty)
Commonwealth v. Doucette, 391 Mass. 443 (instruction on effect of intoxication/impairment on premeditation)
Commonwealth v. McCowen, 458 Mass. 461 (trial judge’s juror‑impartiality determinations receive great deference)
Commonwealth v. Silva, 471 Mass. 610 (expectation of privacy in institutional‑held clothing depends on facility policies and notice)