Commonwealth v. Lopes, 91 N.E.3d 1126

On May 30, 2010, defendant Crisostomo Lopes and a juvenile codefendant confronted a 14‑year‑old riding a motorized scooter; Lopes grabbed the victim and the codefendant shot him at close range; victim died from a chest wound. Both defendants were convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty) after a jury trial.
Officer Anthony Williams and other police witnessed the incident and pursued/arrested the defendants; a firearm recovered matched ballistic evidence and gunshot residue was found on the defendants.
While being taken into custody, Lopes shouted gang‑identifying statements (“Homes Ave.”); booking officers reported Lopes telling his codefendant to "take the fault."
Defense raised several trial objections on appeal: Batson/Soares challenge to Commonwealth peremptory strikes, admission of gang evidence, exclusion of impeachment about a prior internal affairs suspension of Officer Williams, and alleged improper prosecutor remarks in closing.
The trial judge denied relief on each point; the SJC reviewed those rulings for abuse of discretion and also reviewed the record under G. L. c. 278, § 33E and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Lopes' Argument	Held
Peremptory strikes (Batson/Soares)	Challenges were race‑neutral: prosecutors consistently struck young/college‑aged jurors; age is not a protected class.	Commonwealth impermissibly used strikes to exclude minority jurors; judge should have required earlier explanations.	No abuse of discretion; strikes were based on age/youth and other race‑neutral reasons; judge reasonably found no discriminatory pattern.
Admission of gang evidence	Lopes’ own statements at arrest made “Homes Ave.” relevant to motive; limited background testimony explained meaning.	Admission risked impermissible propensity inference and prejudice.	Admitted for motive/context; limiting instructions and voir dire minimized prejudice; no abuse.
Cross‑examination re: officer misconduct	Prior internal affairs suspension unrelated, noncriminal, and remote; probative value outweighed by prejudice.	Defense sought to impeach Officer Williams with five‑year‑old internal affairs finding of lying to show untruthfulness.	Court properly excluded specific prior misconduct under Mass. G. Evid. §608(b); judge acted within discretion.
Prosecutor’s closing argument	Robust critique of defense was fair advocacy; curative instruction addressed rhetoric; arguments are not evidence.	Prosecutor’s phrases (“insult,” “farce,” “distraction”) were improper and prejudicial.	Remarks were aggressive but not reversible; judge’s curative instruction removed any prejudice.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (1979) (Massachusetts precedent on peremptory challenges and protected groups)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Mass. 307 (2017) (factors and framework for assessing patterns in peremptory strikes)
Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539 (2017) (age is not a cognizable group for Batson purposes)
Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460 (2003) (judge must assess whether prosecutor’s race‑neutral explanations are adequate and genuine)
Commonwealth v. Swafford, 441 Mass. 329 (2004) (gang evidence admissible for motive with caution)
Commonwealth v. Akara, 465 Mass. 245 (2013) (urge caution in admitting gang evidence due to propensity risk)
Mass. G. Evid. § 608(b) (admissibility rule cited regarding specific instances of misconduct and impeachment)
Commonwealth v. LaVelle, 414 Mass. 146 (1993) (narrow exceptions permitting prior false accusation evidence for impeachment)
Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (2010) (limits on prosecutor’s prosecutorial misconduct and rebuttal)