Commonwealth v. Housen, 458 Mass. 702

Victim, a marijuana seller, lived on the third floor of 180-182 Green Street, Brockton, with his girlfriend.
Three African-American men in hooded jackets approached the building; two entered, one rang the doorbell, and a third remained outside.
Defendant, Cannon, and a third man planned an armed robbery; the victim was shot during the attempted robbery.
DNA evidence linked the defendant to blood at the scene; the victim’s gun recovered near the couch.
Defendant testified he accompanied Cannon and Drane to purchase marijuana; he claimed he fled when Cannon fired.
Medical and ballistic experts testified about range of fire and autopsy evidence, while the autopsy examiner did not testify.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for joint venture felony-murder	Davis argued lack of principal liability and no jury specification of theory.	Davis contends insufficient evidence to support conviction as principal or joint venturer.	Evidence sufficient for joint venture; shooter or participant liability supported.
Due process from inconsistent theories across trials	Commonwealth asserts joint venturer theory remained central across trials.	Inconsistency in shooter theory violated due process.	No due process violation; theories core to joint venture remained consistent.
Confrontation issues with autopsy evidence	Medical examiner and firearms expert could rely on autopsy materials not testified to by author	Details in autopsy report discussed beyond confrontation limits.	No Sixth Amendment violation; experts could rely on admissible hearsay for opinions.
Ineffective assistance for stipulating autopsy photos	Stipulation to admission of photographs prejudiced defendant; improper authentication concerns.	Counsel’s stipulation amounted to ineffective assistance.	No error; stipulation was strategic and photographs routinely admitted.
Jury instruction on intent for attempted armed robbery	Judge misstated required general vs specific intent.	Instruction suggested wrong standard for armed robbery.	Context shows specific intent to commit armed robbery; no error.

Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2009) (standard for sufficiency in joint venture cases; general test of participation and intent)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence for felony-murder and joint venture liability)
Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281 (Mass. 2003) ( Commonwealth need not prove shooter identity for joint venture)
Commonwealth v. Moran, 387 Mass. 644 (Mass. 1982) (no requirement to prove defendant intended death; focus on armed robbery intent)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (Mass. 1992) (standard for reviewing potential miscarriage of justice)
Commonwealth v. Nadworny, 396 Mass. 342 (Mass. 1985) (admissibility of photographs and their use to support opinions)
Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (Mass. 2008) ( Sixth Amendment confrontation with expert reliance on autopsy materials)
Department of Youth Servs. v. A Juvenile, 398 Mass. 516 (Mass. 1986) (limits on expert use of autopsy materials; cross-examination scope precedent)
Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. 290 (Mass. 2002) (authentication of photographs; expert reliance on photographs without direct testimony)
Commonwealth v. Banville, 457 Mass. 530 (Mass. 2010) (limits on discussing hearsay details during direct examination)
Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 56 Mass. App. Ct. 641 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (authentication and admissibility of photographs; appellate discussion of basis)