Commonwealth v. McGee
467 Mass. 141
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant convicted by jury of first‑degree murder (premeditation and felony‑murder), armed robbery, and illegal firearm possession for the April 16, 1997 shooting of a convenience‑store clerk.
- Case depended on eyewitness/confession evidence from Natasha Hamilton (roommate/family friend) and Earrie Fenderson; no direct physical link to defendant at scene; two bullet fragments recovered.
- Hamilton testified that defendant confessed, showed money/coins, handled and emptied a gun, and described using an alley route from the store to his nearby apartment.
- Defense emphasized possible motives to lie (reward money, housing assistance) and that some details could be public; key defense witnesses (Farrell, defendant’s mother) invoked Fifth Amendment at trial and were not heard live.
- Defendant moved for new trials arguing newly discovered/now‑available testimony (Farrell, mother), intimidation by detective of Farrell, ballistics unreliability, improper credibility instruction requests, and improper admission of firearm evidence; trial judge denied motions and posttrial discovery.
- Appeals consolidated; Supreme Judicial Court affirmed convictions and declined to exercise extraordinary §33E relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly available testimony of Randy Farrell | Farrell’s posttrial waiver produced exculpatory testimony that the black revolver belonged to Fenderson, undermining witness accounts | Farrell’s absence at trial deprived defendant of crucial evidence; new testimony warrants a new trial | No new trial: Farrell’s testimony was cumulative or known pretrial and would not likely change verdict |
| Mother (Marion) invoking Fifth | N/A (Commonwealth) | Mother’s now‑available testimony would impeach Hamilton and show motive to fabricate; warrants new trial | No new trial: proffered testimony mostly impeachment/cumulative and not likely to produce different outcome |
| Alleged intimidation of Farrell by detective Keeler | Intimidation violated right to present witnesses; Fifth invocation caused prejudice | Denial of intimidation after evidentiary hearing; Farrell declined after consulting counsel | No prejudice shown; judge’s credibility findings upheld; no Constitutional violation requiring new trial |
| Ballistics reliability | N/A (Commonwealth) | Ballistics classification errors undermine link between defendant’s access to gun and murder weapon | No error: expert testimony on class characteristics admissible; jury to decide whether specific gun used |
| Jury instruction re: paid/cooperating witness (Hamilton) | N/A (Commonwealth) | Requested special caution instruction because Hamilton received housing/rent/reward assistance | No reversible error: judge’s general bias/motive and inducement instructions were adequate; defense cross‑examination emphasized inducements |
| Admission/use of firearm evidence (photo & prior possession) | N/A (Commonwealth) | Photo and evidence of other gun (silver automatic) were unduly prejudicial and required limiting instruction | Admission of evidence about revolver and defendant’s access was proper; admission of unrelated automatic was error in limiting instruction but harmless given scant attention and lack of substantial prejudice |
| §278, §33E extraordinary relief | N/A (Commonwealth) | Court should exercise §33E to order new trial given cumulative errors/new evidence | Court declined to exercise §33E; affirmed judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mercado, 466 Mass. 141 (discussing consolidated review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E)
- Commonwealth v. Cintron, 435 Mass. 509 (2001) (standards for newly available/discovered evidence and whether it creates substantial risk of different result)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (framework for new trial when conviction may be unjust)
- Commonwealth v. Robideau, 464 Mass. 699 (review standard for denial of new trial motions)
- Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (admissibility of ballistics/class characteristic expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 463 Mass. 116 (limits on admitting evidence of weapons that could not have been used and need for limiting instructions)
- Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (right to compulsory process / witness presentation)
- United States v. Valenzuela‑Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (prejudice requirement when government’s actions lead to witness absence)