Commonwealth v. Meas
467 Mass. 434
| Mass. | 2014Background
- On June 13, 2006 a man was fatally shot outside a convenience store in Lowell; several witnesses identified individuals from a black Honda Accord shortly after the shooting. Four occupants of the Honda (including defendant Jerry Meas) were stopped nearby, handcuffed, and subjected to multiple showup identifications that occurred within about an hour of the shooting. A .38 handgun and casings were recovered from the Honda.
- Defendant was tried and convicted by a jury on first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and unlawful possession of a firearm; he appeals, raising multiple challenges.
- Key contested evidentiary matters: the propriety and reliability of the on‑the‑scene showup identifications; admission of two surveillance videotapes while a third camera’s tape was lost; limits on cross‑examination and impeachment of a witness (Badillo) for bias; and the trial judge’s jury instructions (including treatment of an immunized witness, Nou).
- The motion judge (who also presided at trial) ruled against suppression of identifications, admitted the two videotapes, limited some cross‑examination on bias after voir dire, declined to discharge a juror who reported an unrelated vandalism incident, and gave a jury charge (but omitted a requested Ciampa instruction).
- The Appeals Court affirmed the denial of the suppression motion and the convictions, concluding (inter alia) the showups were justified and not unnecessarily suggestive, loss of one tape did not require exclusion or reversal, limits on bias inquiry were within discretion, and omission of a Ciampa instruction was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form of murder indictment | Indictment in statutory form suffices to encompass all theories of 1st‑degree murder | Meas argued indictment violated Apprendi/Blakely principles by not specifying theory | Indictment in form required by G. L. c. 277, § 79 is sufficient; Apprendi/Blakely inapplicable — affirmed |
| Suppression of showup IDs | Commonwealth: prompt showups justified by public safety, proximity, and investigative need; not unduly suggestive | Meas: one‑on‑one showups were unnecessarily suggestive and violated due process | Court: promptness, weapon recovery, matching vehicle/plate, lighting, officer presence created good reason; totality of circumstances did not show unnecessary suggestiveness — suppression denied |
| Lost surveillance tape (missing camera angle) | Commonwealth: two preserved tapes admissible; missing third tape not likely exculpatory and defendant could exploit loss via cross‑exam and instructions | Meas: lost tape could have impeached witnesses (Badillo) and was potentially exculpatory — required remedy | Trial judge did not abuse discretion: defendant failed to show concrete, reasonable possibility of exculpatory value; Bowden instruction and cross‑examination avenues sufficed — admission affirmed |
| Jury instruction re: immunized witness (Ciampa) | Defendant sought stronger Ciampa‑style cautionary instruction addressing immunity and promise to tell truth | Commonwealth/judge: gave statutory immunity instruction and general credibility guidance but not the specific requested Ciampa language | Court: Ciampa instruction should have been given, but omission was harmless given other instructions and evidence weight — no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. DePace, 442 Mass. 739 (2004) (statutory form indictment encompasses all theories of first‑degree murder)
- Commonwealth v. Austin, 421 Mass. 357 (1995) (one‑on‑one showups permissible when good reason exists; totality of circumstances test)
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (1980) (prompt showups shortly after crime regularly permissible; lost‑evidence/Bowden remedy discussion)
- Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 406 Mass. 257 (1989) (guidelines for jury instructions when witness testifies under plea/immunity arrangement)
- Commonwealth v. Cintron, 438 Mass. 779 (2003) (defendant bears initial burden to show reasonable possibility that lost evidence would be favorable)
- Commonwealth v. Carr, 464 Mass. 855 (2013) (review of trial judge’s remedial discretion for lost evidence)