Commonwealth v. Diaz
SJC 11812
| Mass. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Victim, a 90-year-old resident of an elderly housing complex in Springfield, was found on January 20, 1991, sexually assaulted and killed from multiple blunt-force injuries; autopsy showed facial fractures, broken ribs and sternum, crushed larynx, hemorrhages consistent with strangulation, and anal/vaginal trauma; sperm was found on anal and vaginal swabs.
- Initial 1991 investigation interviewed employees (including defendant, a part-time maintenance worker) but produced no suspects; the crime lab did not perform DNA testing then.
- The anorectal swab was DNA-tested in 2002, yielding a sperm-profile. In 2012 the DA reopened the case, obtained voluntary buccal swabs from several former employees; the defendant consented at work and his DNA matched the sperm profile with astronomically low random-match statistics.
- The defendant was arrested in January 2013 and tried for first‑degree murder (the Commonwealth proceeded on deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity/cruelty, and felony‑murder theories); a jury convicted on all three theories; aggravated rape indictment was later dismissed as time-barred before trial.
- On appeal defendant challenged multiple prosecutor statements in closing (alleging misstated facts, improper inferences from excluded or nonexistent evidence, speculation about motive, and appeals to emotion) and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object; he also sought relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E based on alleged evidence-handling problems.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Diaz's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s references to defendant’s 1991 emotional reaction | Statements were reasonable inferences from detective testimony that defendant cried and was "extremely emotional" and that no other witnesses cried | Statements relied on facts excluded by trial judge and misstated that officers had not told defendant how victim died | No reversible error: limited exclusion only prevented comparative testimony; remaining testimony supported prosecutor’s characterization and argument was a permissible inference |
| Prosecutor speculation about motive (drug use) | Brief, acknowledged speculation; motive not an element and comment was fleeting amid strong evidence | Speculation lacked evidentiary support and improperly suggested drug use to explain brutality | Harmless: improper but brief and unlikely to have affected verdict given strong DNA and other evidence |
| Prosecutor’s medical inferences re: victim being alive during repeated blows and defensive wounds | Inferences supported by autopsy findings (aspiration of blood, multiple blunt trauma) and were reasonable for jury to draw | No expert testimony to label bruises as defensive; could mislead jury about timing of death | Not improper: medical evidence supported inference that victim suffered and likely remained alive after initial blows; brief speculative framing did not create substantial miscarriage of justice |
| Chain-of-custody / evidence handling and § 33E relief | Any lapses went to weight not admissibility; defendant had opportunity to argue defects to jury | Missing original case file and earlier evidence mismanagement undermined reliability and warrant post-conviction relief or reduced verdict | No basis to set aside verdict or reduce degree of guilt under § 33E; problems affected weight, not admissibility, and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kater, 432 Mass. 404 (standard for reviewing prosecutor argument claims)
- Commonwealth v. Kozec, 399 Mass. 514 (factors for prosecutorial error review)
- Commonwealth v. Wilson, 427 Mass. 336 (limits of closing argument: facts and reasonable inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Burgess, 450 Mass. 422 (prosecutor may propose how evidence "fits together")
- Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375 (standard when no contemporaneous objection)
- Commonwealth v. Whitman, 453 Mass. 331 (contextual review of closing remarks)
- Commonwealth v. Andrade, 468 Mass. 543 (permissible inferences from medical evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cyr, 425 Mass. 89 (expert testimony on defensive wounds)
- Commonwealth v. Bois, 476 Mass. 15 (motive not an element the Commonwealth must prove)
- Commonwealth v. Viriyahiranpaiboon, 412 Mass. 224 (chain-of-custody defects go to weight not admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Painten, 429 Mass. 536 (standard for ineffective-assistance claims in this context)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (ineffective-assistance review principles)
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (voluntariness of consent to provide DNA sample)
- Commonwealth v. Morin, 478 Mass. 415 (statute of limitations issues affecting aggravated rape charge)