Commonwealth v. Cheremond
961 N.E.2d 97
Mass.2012Background
- Victim operated a beauty salon; defendant operated a neighboring store and lived with her until a protection order required him to move out.
- Order expired in 2008; victim moved away due to fear of the defendant chasing her and dating Yves.
- February 2008: victim and Yves were seen together; defendant confronted them and warned violence for breaking up.
- Victim disappeared February 13, 2008; victim’s car and pocketbook were later found; defendant claimed he last saw her on Feb. 13.
- DNA from the autopsy linked the defendant to vaginal and anal samples; victim’s underwear and chewing gum also tied to defendant; Yves excluded.
- Trial established murder (deliberate premeditation) and felony-murder based on aggravated rape; defendant challenged admissibility of prior acts and closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for aggravated rape grand jury | Commonwealth: sufficient evidence to infer nonconsent. | Spina: insufficient to show lack of consent. | Sufficient evidence to infer lack of consent; grand jury could indict. |
| Felony-murder based on aggravated rape | Commonwealth: murder valid with underlying aggravated rape proven. | Lack of consent undermines predicate felony. | Conviction valid; grand jury need not reflect criminality for underlying theory. |
| Admission of prior bad acts evidence | Commonwealth: admissible to show state of mind/relationship/motive. | Inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial, violates Confrontation Clause. | Some evidence admissible for state of mind; some was improper but harmless error; overall no reversible prejudice. |
| Limiting instructions and motive/relationship evidence | Evidence properly limited to state of mind/consent and relationship. | Limiting instructions insufficient to cure prejudice. | Instructions adequate; no reversible prejudice given strength of admissible evidence. |
| Prosecutor's closing argument | Arguments supported by evidence; no substantial misstatement of law or fact. | Some statements misstated duration of strangulation and misused DNA evidence/propensity. | Any errors were not sufficient to create substantial likelihood of miscarriage; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 459 Mass. 271 (Mass. 2011) (supports non-duplication and grand jury sufficiency in murder conspiracy cases)
- Commonwealth v. DePace, 442 Mass. 739 (Mass. 2004) (indictment covers murder by any means; underlying theory not required)
- Commonwealth v. Daughtry, 417 Mass. 136 (Mass. 1994) (indictment language suffices for broad murder theories)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for reviewing evidence at close of Commonwealth’s case)
- Commonwealth v. Hurley, 455 Mass. 53 (Mass. 2009) (confrontation and non-testimonial evidence limitations)