Commonwealth v. DaSilva
471 Mass. 71
| Mass. | 2015Background
- Commonwealth defendant in Roxbury drive-by shooting case; motive was revenge against Evans for shooting a family friend; seven shell casings and related ballistic evidence tied to a Mauser pistol linked to Gomes family; defendant and Gomes were identified as participants; Clarimundo DaSilva testified to events and provided grand jury inconsistencies used for Daye analysis; defendant challenged multiple evidentiary rulings and trial conduct on appeal; judgments affirmed.
- Several key pieces of evidence included the Nissan and Impala seen in the vicinity, the defendant's fingerprints on items in the vehicle, and shell casings connected to the shooting; 911 calls and dispatcher testimony were integral to timing and sequence; the Grand Jury testimony of Clarimundo DaSilva was admitted for probative value under Daye despite inconsistencies with trial testimony; the defense argued about police work, recording of custodial statements, and prosecutorial conduct.
- The trial judge allowed use of Clarimundo’s grand jury testimony under Daye; the court analyzed coercion, inconsistency, and confrontation concerns; the reliability assessment supported admission of that testimony.
- The Commonwealth sought to admit prior acts as motive evidence; the court balanced probative value against potential prejudice, finding a strong nexus between Langdon Street incidents and Maywood Street shooting to support admission.
- Convictions for first-degree murder and related offenses were affirmed; the court declined to exercise its power under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, for reduction or new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of grand jury testimony under Daye | DaSilva argues Daye requirements not met | DaSilva contends testimony was coerced and inconsistent with trial | No error; Daye prerequisites satisfied |
| Admission of evidence of prior bad acts for motive | Commonwealth relies on motive from Langdon Street shooting | Defense challenges relevance and potential prejudice | Evidence properly admitted; probative value outweighed prejudice |
| Defendant's custodial statement recording | State entitled to explain lack of recording | Recording omission should have been explained, not admitted | Admissible; DiGiambattista rationale applied appropriately |
| Admission of 911 calls and dispatcher testimony as hearsay | Testimony relevant to timing and sequence | Hearsay and prejudicial risk | Redacted CAD printouts and corrected testimony mitigated error; no prejudicial impact |
| Prosecutor's closing argument missteps | Closing argued timeframes and motives | Arguments beyond evidence; vouching at times | No reversible error; corrective instructions given; one improper vouching instance deemed remedied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55 (Mass. 1984) (conditions for using prior grand jury testimony to impeach inconsistent trial testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Beauchamp, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 591 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (coercion standards for grand jury testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 466 Mass. 742 (Mass. 2014) (voir dire not always required when inconsistencies evident)
- Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 451 Mass. 566 (Mass. 2008) (confrontation and cross-examination rights in grand jury contexts)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 455 Mass. 230 (Mass. 2009) (impeachment based on failure to report exculpatory information)