Commonwealth v. Montrond, 477 Mass. 127

Defendant shot and killed his former girlfriend, Carlita Chaney, at close range in the Montrond family home on August 16, 2007; he was convicted of first-degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and related firearms offenses.
Defense at trial: the shooting was accidental; trial counsel declined to present evidence that defendant was intoxicated and did not object to several references to the defendant’s listing on the MassMostWanted website.
Key evidence for Commonwealth: testimony that the defendant had called the victim a “snitch” shortly before the shooting (motive), family members’ accounts of defendant’s post‑shooting behavior, and the recovered firearm with safety engaged.
Posttrial, defendant moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to present intoxication evidence; failure to object to MassMostWanted references; failure to strike a medical examiner’s homicide remark) and a Confrontation Clause violation (medical examiner testified to another analyst’s toxicology results).
This court remanded for an evidentiary hearing; the second motion judge found counsel’s failure to introduce intoxication evidence was manifestly unreasonable but harmless given the strength of the Commonwealth’s proof and other evidence; the Confrontation Clause error was found harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed the convictions and declined to reduce the degree of guilt under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to introduce intoxication evidence	Counsel acted reasonably pursuing acquittal; evidence weak	Counsel was manifestly unreasonable for omitting intoxication evidence that could support accident or involuntary manslaughter	Error but harmless; omission was manifestly unreasonable yet would not have altered verdict
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to MassMostWanted references	References were relevant to motive; not unduly prejudicial	References were more prejudicial than probative and counsel should have objected	Failure to object was error but harmless; curative instruction and strong other evidence made verdict reliable
Ineffective assistance — failure to strike medical examiner’s ‘‘homicide’’ comment	Counsel cured harm through effective cross‑examination causing recantation	Statement was improper and should have been struck	No ineffective assistance; counsel’s cross mitigated the remark’s effect
Confrontation Clause — medical examiner reported another analyst’s toxicology results	Testimonial out‑of‑court statement violated confrontation clause	Admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Assuming error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require new trial

Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (establishes standard for Saferian review referenced for ineffective assistance)
Commonwealth v. Spray, 467 Mass. 456 (discusses review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E for trial errors)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (standard for reviewing trial errors under § 33E)
Commonwealth v. Sena, 429 Mass. 590 (new trial required if counsel failed to raise substantial defense unless verdict would be same)
Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435 (strategic decisions constitute error only if manifestly unreasonable)
Commonwealth v. Sama, 411 Mass. 293 (intoxication evidence can undercut specific intent)
Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383 (defines wanton or reckless conduct standard)
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (limits on admitting uncharged misconduct evidence)
Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (probative value must outweigh unfair prejudice for similar‑acts evidence)
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 Mass. 350 (harmless‑error standard for Confrontation Clause violations)