Commonwealth v. Issa
466 Mass. 1
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Defendant (African‑American male) was retried and convicted of first‑degree murder for strangling his former partner; victim found with ligature, bleach stains, and syringe cap nearby; medical examiner ruled strangulation by ligature.
- Strong circumstantial and forensic evidence: Y‑STR and STR matches tying paternal lineage and defendant to string and to a substance on a door peephole; mixed DNA under victim’s fingernails included a paternal‑line match; defendant worked where similar syringes were stored.
- Defendant voluntarily went to the police station hours after the body was discovered and gave an unrecorded interview; timeline discrepancies and cellphone records undermined his alibi.
- During trial defense counsel belatedly produced a jacket and athletic pants (with an intact drawstring) that defendant allegedly wore the night of the killing; prosecutor had earlier elicited evidence suggesting those clothes were not recovered.
- Trial judge found a reciprocal‑discovery violation, admitted the clothing but imposed limiting instructions (including disclosure of an earlier trial) and allowed the Commonwealth to attack the witnesses’ credibility; judge denied request for DiGiambattista instruction about the unrecorded station interview.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Diallo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremptory challenge of sole African‑American male juror | Challenge was proper; no prima facie showing of discriminatory pattern | Judge should have required prosecutor to state group‑neutral reason; failure deprived defendant of equal protection | Court affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion in finding no prima facie case, though judge should have required an explanation in close situations |
| Sanctions & jury instructions for late production of jacket/pants | Sanctions were appropriate and tailored; Commonwealth prejudiced by surprise evidence | Sanctions and instructions (disclosing prior trial, allowing credibility attacks) unfairly prejudiced defendant | Court affirmed: judge reasonably crafted remedial sanctions short of exclusion and did not abuse discretion |
| Request for DiGiambattista instruction re: unrecorded police station interview | Interview at police station, unrecorded — instruction required | Interview occurred voluntarily before police identified a suspect or determined a homicide; DiGiambattista not applicable | Court affirmed: no DiGiambattista instruction required under these facts |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument | Argument fairly summarized evidence and reasonable inferences | Prosecutor misstated law/evidence and made improper inferences | Court affirmed: challenged remarks cured by instructions or non‑prejudicial on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based on race violate equal protection)
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004) (humane‑practice instruction when custodial station interviews are unrecorded)
- Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (Mass. 1979) (state constitutional bar on jury selection discrimination)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460 (Mass. 2003) (bona fide, group‑neutral explanation; adequacy and genuineness standards)
- Commonwealth v. Carney, 458 Mass. 418 (Mass. 2010) (discovery violation sanctions must be remedial and tailored)
- Commonwealth v. Hart, 455 Mass. 230 (Mass. 2009) (permitting jury to consider failure to disclose exculpatory evidence when foundation established)
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (Mass. 1980) (no requirement to give special instruction on alleged inadequacy of police investigation if issues are left for jury)
- Commonwealth v. Prunty, 462 Mass. 295 (Mass. 2012) (single peremptory strike of sole member of protected class can support prima facie showing)