Commonwealth v. Gomes
944 N.E.2d 1007
Mass.2011Background
- Gomes was convicted of first-degree murder by deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty; other charges include unlawful firearm possession and related ammunition devices.
- On Aug. 13, 2002, Gomes shot a driver eighteen times at Ridgewood Street in Dorchester; the victim died; five witnesses identified Gomes as the shooter.
- A Calico M950 handgun with a velvet-tape packet containing eighteen shell casings was recovered behind 26 Ridgewood Street; the magazine held 50 rounds with 17 live rounds.
- Gomes and his girlfriend traveled to New York and California the same night; a recorded call suggested someone was shot but it was the wrong person; Gomes admitted to shooting someone in later conversations.
- A search warrant (Aug. 21, 2002) at Gomes's apartment yielded four gun magazines and a roll of black electrical tape; a fracture-match linked the tape ends to tape on the gun.
- Jailhouse phone calls (recorded June 13, 2003) referenced as a 'snitch' or 'rat' were admitted at trial; Gomes was arrested in Florida on an outstanding Massachusetts murder warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of the view demonstration on trial fairness | Gomes: prosecutor impermissibly appealed to jurors' observations during the view by asking about his features. | Gomes: the demonstration made his features evidence and violated trial rights. | No reversible error; any prejudice was cured; judge should have attended, but overall not a miscarriage. |
| Prosecutor's opening statement about Infiniti | Gomes: opening statement asserted facts not proven and risked misidentification. | Gomes: prediction was improper but based on admissible evidence; no bad faith. | No error; statements reasonably based on evidence; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage. |
| Fracture-match testimony reliability | Gomes: fracture-match science and expert qualification were not established. | Gomes: expert lacked established reliability and qualifications; Lanigan standard unmet. | Admissible; trial judge acted within discretion; fracture-match evidence accepted. |
| Recorded jailhouse conversations' admissibility | Gomes: recordings violated privacy rights and were impermissibly disseminated. | Gomes: monitoring was justified by penological interests; privacy expectation limited. | No error; pretrial detainee has limited privacy in monitored calls; recordings properly admitted. |
| Jury instruction on third-party culprit (August) | Gomes: instruction improperly precluded consideration of other shooters. | Gomes: instruction ambiguously limited third-party defense. | Not error; instruction viewed in context of entire charge; no miscarriage of justice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (1992) (standard for reviewing errors not preserved by objection)
- Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12 (1923) (view and related evidentiary limits in trials)
- Commonwealth v. Snyder, 282 Mass. 401 (1933) (no right to attend a view under Sixth Amendment)
- Commonwealth v. Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304 (1926) (views should be cautious; not evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 455 Mass. 372 (2009) (identification burden and view considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Farley, 443 Mass. 740 (2005) (third-party culpability instructions and burden guidelines)
- Commonwealth v. Vives, 447 Mass. 537 (2006) (identification and evidentiary standards in trials)
- Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) (Lanigan standard for reliability of scientific evidence)
- Canavan's Case, 432 Mass. 304 (2000) (sanctioning judicial discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Letch v. Daniels, 401 Mass. 65 (1987) (education and experience sufficiency for expert testimony)
- Gill v. North Shore Radiological Assocs., 10 Mass. App. Ct. 885 (1980) (expert testimony admissibility standards)