Commonwealth v. Gray
465 Mass. 330
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Defendant convicted by a Massachusetts Superior Court jury of first-degree murder for killing his uncle Charlie Wilson (July 9, 2005); assault and battery with a dangerous weapon on MacArthur Powell (June 16, 2005); and related firearm offenses; jury could not reach verdict on murder of James Gray (stepfather) and related charges.
- Commonwealth argued the killings/assaults were motivated by the defendant’s belief that each victim had sexually abused him as a child; defendant challenged joinder of the assault indictment with the two murder indictments.
- Trial court joined the three indictments; defense argued prejudicial impact and that evidence of prior acts would be inadmissible at severed trials.
- The trial judge gave instructions that the Commonwealth had to prove each indictment beyond a reasonable doubt; the defense moved to sever but was denied.
- After arrest, the defendant made statements; investigators found shell casings and a watch missing from James’s apartment; the defense challenged suppression of ammunition seized from the apartment; issues included consent to entry, the scope of search, and inevitable discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was joinder of the assault indictment with the murder indictments proper? | Joinder allowed because offenses related by common scheme and proximity. | Joinder prejudicial, risks improper propensity inference and duplicative testimony. | Joinder proper; no compelling prejudice shown. |
| Did the voir dire about absence of DNA/fingerprint evidence abuse juror impartiality? | Judge’s CSI-question limited bias and ensured fair evaluation. | Voir dire invaded jury’s province and biased deliberations. | Discretion not abused; CSI-question allowed with caution. |
| Did prosecutor’s closing, referencing the voir dire, improperly solicit ignoring lack of scientific evidence? | Closure argument relied on voir dire to frame lack of scientific evidence. | Opening/closing suggested ignoring evidence gaps. | Not reversible error in context of closing as a whole. |
| Was the motion to suppress ammunition properly denied given consent, scope, and inevitable discovery? | Consent to entry allowed initial search; ammunition found legally could be used. | Consent limited; warrantless search beyond scope violated Fourth Amendment. | Ammonition admission upheld; inevitable discovery independent of tainted entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 436 Mass. 799 (Mass. 2002) (joinder determination requires best interests of justice; related offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Sylvester, 388 Mass. 749 (Mass. 1983) (trial court discretion on joinder; relatedness factors)
- Commonwealth v. Mamay, 407 Mass. 412 (Mass. 1990) (joinder and admissibility under related offenses; symmetry of proof)
- Commonwealth v. Feijoo, 419 Mass. 486 (Mass. 1995) (related offenses; common scheme/plan; admissibility of similar acts)
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (Mass. 1980) (Bowden rule; avoid instructing jury to ignore lack of evidence; CSI questions cautionary)
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 460 Mass. 683 (Mass. 2011) (voir dire on scientific evidence; CSI effect questions appropriate with care)
- Commonwealth v. Vuthy Seng, 456 Mass. 490 (Mass. 2010) (CSI-related voir dire guidance; cautious use of questions)
- Commonwealth v. Garuti, 454 Mass. 48 (Mass. 2009) (scope of voir dire; bias assessment)
- Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 439 Mass. 616 (Mass. 2003) (inevitable discovery and from where evidence may be obtained)