119 N.E.3d 278
Mass.2019Background
- Victim Sheila dos Santos was found stabbed to death outside her Everett apartment early on October 2, 2009; she suffered multiple stab wounds and her belongings remained at the scene.
- Defendant Antonio Ferreira had a prior romantic relationship with the victim that ended months earlier; in the days before the killing he made threats and expressed obsessive behavior toward her according to friends and family.
- Surveillance video placed a silver Nissan Murano (matching Ferreira’s vehicle) near the victim’s building around the time of the homicide; a neighbor saw a man in a light-brown/tan jacket leave the rear of the building after screams were heard.
- Police interviewed the defendant at the station that afternoon, observed cuts on his hands, and a State police chemist (Koester) tested and swabbed his hands for nonvisible blood; subsequent DNA testing found the victim’s DNA as a possible contributor on swabs and on bloodstained sneakers seized from the defendant’s closet.
- After conviction for first-degree murder, postconviction disclosure revealed that Koester had failed proficiency tests and that the crime lab issued corrected STR/Y-STR statistics; defendant sought a new trial on Brady/newly discovered evidence and raised suppression and evidentiary challenges.
- The trial judge and the SJC denied relief: conviction affirmed; judge found Koester’s role limited, revised DNA statistics were not exculpatory, hand swabs were supported by probable cause and exigency, and erroneous evidentiary rulings were harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Ferreira's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for new trial based on nondisclosed/after-the-fact Koester proficiency failures | Information was not in prosecutor’s possession at trial and Koester played a limited role; disclosure would not have changed the verdict | Failures were known to lab before trial and were exculpatory; nondisclosure prejudiced defendant | No abuse of discretion; limited role of Koester and overwhelming evidence meant no reasonable probability of a different result |
| Revised STR/Y-STR statistics (corrected DNA probabilities) | Corrected stats were less damaging but not exculpatory; other DNA (sneaker blood) strongly linked defendant to victim | Revised calculations materially reduced combined-match rarity and undercut DNA evidence at trial | Corrected stats insufficient to warrant new trial given other powerful DNA evidence (e.g., blood on sneaker) |
| Warrantless swabbing of defendant’s hands at police station and probable cause for home/vehicle searches | Officers had probable cause (threats, surveillance, cuts on hands) and exigent circumstances (risk of loss of nonvisible blood); warrant affidavit contained corroboration | Swabbing was nonconsensual and warrantless; affidavit lacked sufficient probable cause for later warrants | Swabbing justified by probable cause and exigency; warrant for apartment/vehicles was supported by a substantial basis for nexus |
| Admission of adoptive admission and prior grand jury testimony | Adoptive-admission evidence and prior statement admissible with limiting instruction or as prior recorded testimony | Silence after a threatening call is not an adoptive admission; prior grand jury testimony lacked proper foundation | Admission of silence evidence was an abuse of discretion but harmless; grand jury testimony should not have been admitted but error was not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bolling, 462 Mass. 440 (overview of reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lykus, 451 Mass. 310 (newly discovered evidence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 478 Mass. 369 (Brady/new-discovery analysis re: forensic issues)
- Latimore v. Commonwealth (Jackson standard applied), 378 Mass. 671 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 449 Mass. 476 (exigent circumstances and loss of evidence doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. DePina, 476 Mass. 614 (use of grand jury testimony when witness feigns memory)
- Commonwealth v. McKenzie, 413 Mass. 498 (caution on adoptive admissions)
- Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348 (harmless-error analysis for improperly admitted evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cameron, 473 Mass. 100 (circumstances where new DNA evidence can warrant new trial)