Commonwealth v. Corliss
23 N.E.3d 92
Mass.2015Background
- December 26, 2009: convenience store clerk Surendra Dangol was robbed and fatally shot; surveillance video captured a white Plymouth Acclaim near the scene and images of the masked gunman. ~$746 taken.
- Police linked a white Plymouth Acclaim registered to the defendant’s wife and later recovered a handgun from Revere Beach that ballistics matched to the fatal shot. Defendant made multiple admissions to acquaintances and inmates confessing to the robbery and shooting and describing the car and disposal of the gun.
- Police seized $320 from the defendant’s residence (bills photographed and serial numbers recorded) but deposited them per policy without fingerprint/DNA testing or segregated retention; defendant argued the loss of potential exculpatory testing warranted dismissal.
- Defense proffered expert video (superimposed height chart on surveillance stills) to show camera distortion of perpetrator height; trial judge excluded the superimposed images but admitted the height-chart video alone and allowed the expert to testify about distortion.
- Procedural posture: jury convicted defendant of first‑degree murder (premeditation and felony‑murder), unlawful possession of a firearm, and armed masked robbery; defendant appealed on multiple evidentiary and view‑related grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Corliss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had a right to be present at jury view and to attend separately | No constitutional right to be present; judge may exclude for security and impose conditions | Defendant argued he should attend same or identical separate view and not be confined to a vehicle; Morganti requires presence when view involves demonstration | Court held no error: defendant has no constitutional right to accompany jury on view; judge properly restricted attendance for security and provided notice of view details |
| Admissibility of witness testimony that defendant possessed a gun 16 months earlier | Testimony relevant to show access to and familiarity with firearms (means to commit crime) | Testimony was remote and prejudicial; risk of improperly linking that gun to murder weapon | Court upheld admission: probative value (means/knowledge) outweighed prejudice; temporal gap was within judge’s discretion and limiting instructions were given |
| Whether failure to retain and test seized money required dismissal | Govt acted per policy; defendant could still argue facts at trial | Loss/destruction of evidence (no fingerprint/DNA testing) deprived defendant of ability to show bills lacked victim’s prints/DNA and was materially exculpatory | Court denied relief: defendant failed to show a reasonable possibility loss would have produced favorable evidence; any exculpatory value was speculative and minimal |
| Exclusion of defense expert’s superimposed height images and related testimony | The images were unreliable given changed store/camera conditions; judge has discretion to exclude experiments/demonstrations | Exclusion infringed right to present defense and the images were probative to show height mismatch | Court affirmed exclusion as within discretion; any error was harmless because expert testimony about camera distortion and the admitted height‑chart video conveyed same substantive points |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388 (discussing defendant presence at jury views and demonstrations)
- Commonwealth v. Gordon, 422 Mass. 816 (no constitutional right to be present during a jury view)
- Commonwealth v. Gomes, 459 Mass. 194 (view is not part of the trial; view is not strictly evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 438 Mass. 142 (trial judge may impose reasonable conditions on defendant attending a jury view)
- Commonwealth v. McGee, 467 Mass. 141 (admission of prior firearm possession evidence left to trial judge’s discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Cintron, 438 Mass. 779 (burden on defendant to show reasonable possibility that lost/destroyed evidence would have been exculpatory)
- Commonwealth v. Kee, 449 Mass. 550 (defendant must show lost evidence likely to be exculpatory before relief)
- Commonwealth v. Flynn, 362 Mass. 455 (trial judge's discretion to admit or exclude experimental/demonstrative evidence)