Commonwealth v. Holley
476 Mass. 114
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Victim Susy Goulart was found dead in April 2005 with multiple stab and cutting wounds; autopsy showed 40 stab and 13 cutting wounds; knife not recovered.
- DNA from vaginal and anorectal swabs matched the defendant, Jermaine Holley; gelatin lifts of bloody shoeprints matched the model/characteristics of Holley’s shoes; stones/gum found on his shoe soles.
- Neighbors saw an African‑American man in a hoodie enter the victim’s building the evening of the murder; multiple residents reported Holley showed or waved a large knife the same day.
- Investigators and lab evidence linked Holley to the scene; Holley provided an alibi that conflicted with DNA evidence and lied about knowing the victim.
- Procedural posture: Holley was indicted by grand jury (2007), convicted of first‑degree murder (2011) on extreme atrocity/cruelty theory, moved for new trial (denied 2014), and appealed. The SJC affirmed the conviction and denial of new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presence of police in grand jury | Commonwealth: indictment valid; officers’ presence improper but did not prejudice trial | Holley: officers’ presence voids indictment ab initio; alternatively counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss | Indictment voidable, not automatically void; Holley waived timely challenge and failed to show substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Motion for special prosecutor (conflict) | Commonwealth: no disqualifying conflict; attorney screened and did not participate | Holley: prior private‑practice relationship and prior representation of Holley required outside prosecutor or disqualification | No error denying special prosecutor; rule permits screening and non‑imputation where former private lawyer had not participated and prosecutor had no actual knowledge |
| Evidentiary rulings (prior bad acts; shoeprint/DNA testimony) | Commonwealth: prior acts showed access to a large knife, motive, identity, and state of mind; shoeprint/DNA expert testimony admissible to aid jury | Holley: prior bad acts were prejudicial propensity evidence; shoeprint matching and limited DNA opinions were unreliable and should be excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion: prior‑act evidence admissible for identity/motive; shoeprint and limited expert testimony admissible with jury to decide match; prosecution limited inconclusive DNA evidence as appropriate |
| Prosecutor’s statements (opening/closing) & new trial denial | Commonwealth: any imprecise or misstated remarks were immaterial in context, and curative instructions sufficed | Holley: opening and closing comments misled jury (DNA probability, light‑switch sample, shoe “match”), warranting reversal/new trial | Statements did not create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice given curative instructions, evidence, and jury role; trial judge properly denied new trial without evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Pezzano, 387 Mass. 69 (discussing unauthorized persons in grand jury and potential to void indictment)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 231 Mass. 584 (grand jury right; historic rule on unauthorized persons)
- United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (Federal precedent that grand jury defects do not automatically void convictions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (no federal right to grand jury in state prosecutions; states may provide grand jury protections)
- Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (standard for admissibility of expert opinion)
- Commonwealth v. Torres, 469 Mass. 398 (admissibility of footwear comparison testimony; jury as ultimate finder of match)
- Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840 (admission and limits of nonexclusive/inconclusive DNA evidence)