Commonwealth v. Gulla, 476 Mass. 743

Background

On January 23, 2010, Robert Gulla killed his girlfriend after a short violent relationship; the victim suffered multiple stab wounds, blunt trauma, and a pellet-gun wound to the face. Gulla also had self-inflicted wounds and a note confessing responsibility.
Prior incidents included a campus no-trespass order, an earlier physical assault in December, destruction of the victim's phone, and a temporary restraining order issued January 19, 2010.
At trial the Commonwealth charged first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty) and violation of an abuse prevention order.
Defense pursued a diminished capacity defense and presented psychiatric testimony that Gulla’s mental impairment and intoxication precluded first‑degree intent.
Defense did not pursue a lack of criminal responsibility (insanity) defense because counsel could not find an expert to support it; counsel made closing arguments on diminished capacity.
Trial judge convicted Gulla; posttrial motion alleging ineffective assistance and requests for additional instructions were denied. The SJC affirmed convictions and denied relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Gulla)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing lack of criminal responsibility	Counsel’s tactical choice not to present an unsupported defense was reasonable	Counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue/seek instruction on lack of criminal responsibility	Court: Counsel’s decision was a reasonable tactical choice; no ineffective assistance
Whether counsel’s closing argument on diminished capacity was constitutionally inadequate	Closing covered necessary points and experts’ common ground; not prejudicial	Closing failed to press diminished capacity forcefully enough	Court: No ineffective assistance; argument adequate
Whether judge erred by not sua sponte instructing on lack of criminal responsibility	No need to give an instruction absent request and supporting evidence	Failure to instruct deprived defendant of meaningful opportunity to present complete defense	Court: No error; instruction not required and could undermine defense choice
Whether trial judge erred in denying voluntary manslaughter instruction	Evidence did not support sudden passion, sudden combat, or provocation based on infidelity	Requested instruction warranted based on head injury or renewed discovery of infidelity	Court: Denial proper; evidence did not support manslaughter theory

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Monico, 396 Mass. 793 (expert testimony not always required to raise lack of criminal responsibility)
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (ineffective assistance standard)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (applying G. L. c. 278, § 33E standard in first‑degree murder ineffective‑assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. LaCava, 438 Mass. 708 (discussion of lack of criminal responsibility and appellate review)
Commonwealth v. Harbin, 435 Mass. 654 (reference on § 33E standard)
Commonwealth v. Cutts, 444 Mass. 821 (defense tactical choices reviewed for reasonableness)
Commonwealth v. Genius, 387 Mass. 695 (counsel strategy and prejudice analysis)
Commonwealth v. Mosher, 455 Mass. 811 (recognizing many hindsight criticisms of counsel are reasonable tactics)
Commonwealth v. Mattson, 377 Mass. 638 (preference to give lack of criminal responsibility instruction when requested)
Commonwealth v. Norris, 462 Mass. 131 (judge issuing instruction sua sponte may interfere with defense strategy)
Commonwealth v. Valentin, 474 Mass. 301 (when voluntary manslaughter instruction should be given)
Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435 (defining voluntary manslaughter by sudden passion)
Commonwealth v. Tassinari, 466 Mass. 340 (heat‑of‑passion provocation standards)
Commonwealth v. Sirois, 437 Mass. 845 (provocation requirements for manslaughter)
Commonwealth v. LeClair, 429 Mass. 313 (no sudden discovery when defendant had prior knowledge)
Commonwealth v. Denis, 442 Mass. 617 (closing argument adequacy standard)
Commonwealth v. Kelly, 470 Mass. 682 (review standard for instruction denial)