Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 463 Mass. 581

Mistrial due to a deadlocked jury, followed by a retrial and conviction on two first‑degree murder indictments for deliberate premeditation.
Defendant moved to dismiss before retrial claiming the Commonwealth’s first‑trial evidence was legally insufficient and arguing retrial violated double jeopardy.
Evidence in the second trial was substantially the same as the first; there were no eyewitnesses or direct forensic links to the defendant.
Prosecution presented circumstantial evidence including motive (affair with Michele), opportunity (drive to Allstate, timing near 8 a.m.), and consciousness of guilt (alibi inconsistencies, false statements).
DNA and surveillance evidence connected the defendant to Martin’s truck (major profile matched defendant; minor profile possible contributor) and to the crime scene timing, with corroborating toll and surveillance data.
Defendant sought to introduce third‑party culprit evidence (Ricky Cali) and argued for Bowden defense limitations; Bowden instruction was disputed but ultimately rejected as never required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy after mistrial on sufficiency grounds	Zammitti; first trial insufficiency argument.	Mazetta?; retrial barred absent manifest necessity if first trial insufficient.	There was no error; sufficient evidence supports the convictions and retrial not barred.
Sufficiency of the evidence at two trials	Evidence, viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth, supports deliberate premeditation.	Evidence insufficient to identify defendant as perpetrator.	Evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Admissibility of third‑party culprit evidence (Cali) and Bowden defense	Evidence could show police investigation gaps; admissible under Bowden framework.	Cali evidence too remote; Bowden defense should permit such inquiry.	No reversible error; evidence properly limited and Bowden principle applied.
Admission of New Hampshire E‑ZPass toll records	Records are probative to link travel timing and corroborate surveillance.	Statute grants confidentiality; records may be privileged.	Records admissible; waiver by Martin and privacy statute construed narrowly.
DNA evidence and inconclusive results (coat hanger chart)	Inconclusive results relevant to demonstrate investigation scope and integrity.	Inconclusive data could mislead jury about defendant’s involvement.	Admissible; case‑by‑case assessment; proper limiting instructions ensured.

Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for reviewing circumstantial evidence in criminal trials)
Commonwealth v. Nicoll, 452 Mass. 816 (2008) (manifest necessity and double jeopardy; retrial after mistrial)
Commonwealth v. Jansen, 459 Mass. 21 (2011) (standard for sufficiency of Commonwealth evidence on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Mazza, 399 Mass. 395 (1987) (motive and opportunity insufficient to identify perpetrator without stronger links)
Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (2009) (Bowden defense and admissibility of third‑party evidence; limits on admissibility)