51 N.E.3d 476
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Marie E. Lyons was convicted in 2004 of second‑degree murder and is serving a life sentence; two strands of hair were recovered from the victim's hands at the crime scene and admitted at trial as exhibits 71–73.
- Neither the Commonwealth nor defense counsel had DNA testing performed on the hairs before trial; defense counsel argued at trial that failure to test created reasonable doubt.
- Lyons filed a postconviction motion under G. L. c. 278A, § 3 (2012 amendments) seeking access to the hair for DNA testing and requested discovery about the evidence's present location and chain of custody.
- At a § 3 hearing, uncertainty arose about where the exhibits currently were (presumed transferred to State Police storage in 2010) and whether the manila envelopes containing the hairs had been sealed when sent to the jury (ADA testified from memory they were unsealed).
- The trial judge denied the § 3 motion, finding Lyons failed to prove an adequate chain of custody (§ 7(b)(2)) and that testing would be material to identification (§ 7(b)(4)); Lyons appealed.
- The Appeals Court vacated the denial and remanded, holding Lyons was entitled to discovery and physical inspection of exhibits 71–73 and that she met the § 7(b)(4) “potential” standard under later Massachusetts precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to discovery/inspection of exhibits and chain of custody information | Lyons: she lacks access and needs discovery and physical inspection to establish current condition and chain of custody | Commonwealth: statute doesn't require routine retesting; exhibits were available at trial and jury inspected them; chain broken if envelopes unsealed | Court: Lyons entitled to discovery and physical inspection of exhibits; remanded for such discovery and further proceedings |
| Reliance on prosecutor's unsworn recollection about condition of envelopes | Lyons: ADA's memory is insufficient; she should be allowed to inspect exhibits rather than courts accept prosecutor statements | Commonwealth: ADA testified from recollection that envelopes were unsealed at trial | Court: Judge erred in relying on ADA's unsworn memory when physical inspection is readily available; inspection required |
| Whether DNA testing has "potential" to produce material identification evidence under G. L. c. 278A, § 7(b)(4) | Lyons: testing could identify a third‑party contributor and thus exculpate her; meets § 7(b)(4) potential standard | Commonwealth: unlikely to be probative; jury could have inspected hairs at trial; defense strategy undermines need | Court: Under Clark and Coutu, "potential" is a low threshold; even if unlikely, Lyons met § 7(b)(4) and testing has the requisite potential |
| Remedy and further proceedings | Lyons: physical inspection and additional discovery, then determination under § 7(b) and, if met, testing | Commonwealth: maintain denial based on chain break and lack of materiality | Court: Vacated denial; remanded for inspection, any further discovery judge deems warranted, and renewed § 7(b) determinations (and then § 7(b)(3),(5),(6) if threshold met) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Clark, 472 Mass. 120 (clarified § 7(b)(4) "potential" standard; low threshold permitting testing even if success is unlikely)
- Commonwealth v. Coutu, 88 Mass. App. Ct. 686 (affirmed that a showing of mere "potential" for material evidence suffices under § 7(b)(4))