Commonwealth v. Lopes
91 N.E.3d 1126
Mass.2017Background
- On May 30, 2010 a 14‑year‑old riding a motorized scooter was grabbed by Crisostomo Lopes while a juvenile codefendant shot him at close range; the victim died from a chest wound.
- Officer Anthony Williams (youth violence strike force) witnessed the defendants approach, Lopes seize the victim, and the codefendant fire; police recovered a matching .25 caliber pistol and gunshot residue on the codefendant and on Lopes's shirt.
- At arrest Lopes shouted references to “Homes Ave.,” and booking-recorded statements in Cape Verdean Creole suggested he told the codefendant to “take the fault.”
- Trial evidence included officer testimony about local gang activity, the victim’s brother’s testimony about neighborhood feuds, and forensic/eyewitness evidence tying the defendants to the shooting.
- Lopes and his codefendant were convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty); Lopes appealed raising issues about jury selection, admission of gang evidence, impeachment of Officer Williams, and prosecutor’s closing remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lopes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peremptory challenges: did Commonwealth improperly exclude jurors based on race/other protected traits? | Challenges were race‑neutral and targeted young/college‑aged jurors; no pattern of racial exclusion. | Commonwealth used peremptories to exclude minority jurors; judge should have found a Batson/Soares pattern and required explanations earlier. | No abuse of discretion: prosecutor consistently targeted youth (not race); judge properly found no impermissible pattern and accepted the race‑neutral explanations when required. |
| Admission of gang evidence (Homes Ave.) | Gang evidence explained Lopes’s shouted statements at arrest and was relevant to motive/state of mind. | Gang evidence was unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded. | No prejudicial error: evidence was relevant to motive, limited, and the judge gave limiting instructions. |
| Cross‑examination of Officer Williams about a prior internal‑affairs suspension for lying | Prior IA suspension bears on credibility and should be admissible to impeach. | The IA matter was remote, unrelated, and inadmissible under Mass. R. Evid. 608(b). | No error: judge acted within discretion to exclude five‑year‑old, collateral misconduct evidence as more prejudicial and distracting than probative. |
| Prosecutor's closing argument (derogatory labels for defense theory) | Prosecutor may vigorously argue and critique defense theory based on the evidence. | Characterizations like "insult," "farce," and "distraction" were improper and prejudicial. | No reversible error: remarks were rhetorical; judge gave a curative instruction that arguments are not evidence, eliminating prejudicial effect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Mass. 307 (discusses factors for assessing Batson/Soares patterns and peremptory‑challenge review)
- Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539 (age is not a constitutionally protected class for peremptory challenge purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (Batson framework adoption in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Issa, 466 Mass. 1 (presumption that peremptories are proper; judge may question prosecutor without finding a pattern)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460 (judge must assess whether race‑neutral explanations are adequate and genuine)
- Commonwealth v. Swafford, 441 Mass. 329 (gang evidence admissible to prove motive)
- Commonwealth v. Akara, 465 Mass. 245 (caution on gang evidence and need for limiting instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Dargon, 457 Mass. 387 (prosecutorial rhetoric limits; "fight fire with fire" caution)
- Commonwealth v. Kater, 432 Mass. 404 (curative instruction can cure improper argument)
- Commonwealth v. LaVelle, 414 Mass. 146 (limits on admitting specific prior bad acts for impeachment; bias/cross‑examination distinction)