491 Mass. 788
Mass.2023Background
- In February 2017, Wes Doughty killed Mark Greenlaw (shot at close range) and Jennifer O'Connor (stabbed and slashed repeatedly), then attempted to conceal the bodies; the killings were brutal and O'Connor likely suffered and bled out over minutes.
- Doughty admitted the killings but claimed heat of passion regarding Greenlaw and intoxication (crack cocaine) regarding O'Connor; evidence included witness statements, bloody crime-scene items, gasoline/torch/flammable-soaked rugs, and recovered knives and firearms.
- After the murders Doughty fled, made statements to acquaintances about the killings, commandeered a car at knifepoint, and was arrested in South Carolina; his behavior post-arrest was described as odd by officers.
- A jury convicted Doughty of two counts of first-degree murder (premeditation as to both; extreme atrocity or cruelty as to O'Connor), attempted burning of a dwelling, armed carjacking, kidnapping, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon; he received consecutive life-without-parole sentences for the murders.
- On appeal Doughty challenged (inter alia) denial of a mistrial after a witness testified to O'Connor's statement about fear of rape, portions of the prosecutor's closing, several jury instructions (mental impairment and intoxication-related), juror dismissal, and the attempted-arson indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial after witness quoted victim saying “If you’re going to rape me, kill me first” | Commonwealth: statement was admissible and relevant to victim’s fear and suffering; prosecutor did not solicit excluded rape hearsay | Doughty: statement introduced impermissible hearsay and prejudiced jury; coupled with missing indictment number suggested suppressed rape charge | Denied mistrial — statement relevant to extreme atrocity/cruelty, was isolated, surprising to prosecutor, not emphasized, and no abuse of discretion shown |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument (appeal to sympathy; misstatements) | Commonwealth: closing was fair argument and reasonable inference from evidence about cruelty | Doughty: prosecutor appealed to sympathy and misstated evidence that defendant took pleasure in killing O'Connor | No reversible error: sympathy remark improper but harmless given instructions, context, and overwhelming evidence; pleasure inference was a permissible inference regarding cruelty |
| Jury instructions on mental impairment and intoxication/mitigating circumstances | Commonwealth: correct instructions; voluntary intoxication relevant to intent but not a "mitigating circumstance" reducing murder to manslaughter | Doughty: requested mental-impairment instruction and argued intoxication should be treated as mitigating; also claimed failure to allow intoxication consideration for extreme atrocity/cruelty | Court upheld denial of mental-impairment instruction (insufficient evidence); held law that voluntary intoxication is not a statutory "mitigating circumstance" correct; but court found error for not instructing that intoxication may be considered regarding extreme atrocity/cruelty — harmless because conviction also rested on premeditation |
| Juror misconduct / refusal to dismiss juror accused of premature deliberation | Commonwealth: trial judge's inquiry showed no corroborated misconduct; juror kept open mind | Doughty: juror made pretrial/substantive comments and should have been excused for bias | No abuse of discretion: judge credited juror’s demeanor, found reporting juror not credible, and retained juror 15 |
| Sufficiency/form of attempted arson indictment | Commonwealth: indictment caption cited statute and provided fair notice; statute itself delineates overt acts for the crime | Doughty: indictment failed to specify "dwelling" and omitted overt act details, violating art. 12 and indictment rules | Rejected: defects do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction; caption and statute citation gave fair notice and statute defines overt acts, so indictment was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunneen v. Commonwealth, 389 Mass. 216 (1983) (victim’s consciousness and suffering relevant to extreme atrocity/cruelty)
- Castillo v. Commonwealth, 485 Mass. 852 (2020) (clarifies Cunneen factors and prospective modification)
- Teixeira v. Commonwealth, 490 Mass. 733 (2022) (instructions and analysis on homicide theories and jury charge sufficiency)
- Santiago v. Commonwealth, 425 Mass. 491 (1997) (trial judge’s discretion on mistrial and witness remarks)
- Bryant v. Commonwealth, 447 Mass. 494 (2006) (mistrial standard and deference to trial judge)
- Boucher v. Commonwealth, 474 Mass. 1 (2016) (need to link voluntary intoxication instructions to extreme atrocity/cruelty when that theory is asserted)
- Johnston v. Commonwealth, 446 Mass. 555 (2006) (voluntary intoxication and mental impairment relevant to intent but not a statutory mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter)
- Philbrook v. Commonwealth, 475 Mass. 20 (2016) (juror impartiality review and deference to trial judge’s credibility assessments)
- Canty v. Commonwealth, 466 Mass. 535 (2013) (indictment must give fair notice; failure to charge a crime implicates due process but not always subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Joyner v. Commonwealth, 467 Mass. 176 (2014) (prosecutor may not misstate evidence but may argue reasonable inferences)