Commonwealth v. Murray
461 Mass. 10
Mass.2011Background
- Defendant convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm; direct appeal pending when he moved for a new trial and for postconviction discovery of undisclosed evidence.
- Affidavit by Lt. Slattery (June 2007) in federal court described KST gang activity and identified the victim and several witnesses as KST members or associates.
- Trial judge granted the defendant’s motion for a new trial; Commonwealth appealed and the appeal was consolidated with the direct appeal.
- Judge found that Slattery’s information could be exculpatory by supporting the defendant’s fear-based self-defense theory, by impeaching KST witnesses, and by showing bias.
- Court applied a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review and ultimately affirmed the new-trial order, rejecting Commonwealth’s arguments that the evidence was not exculpatory or prejudicial.
- Principles from several Massachusetts and federal authorities govern exculpatory material, impeachment, and prejudice in new-trial determinations and guide the court’s analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether undisclosed evidence was exculpatory and required a new trial. | Beal argued Slattery’s affidavit lacked exculpatory value. | Tucceri and related cases show potential exculpatory value in impeaching witnesses and supporting defense theories. | Yes; the judge did not abuse discretion in granting a new trial. |
| Whether the undisclosed evidence prejudiced the defendant. | Commonwealth contends prejudice was negligible due to other records. | Evidence would have influenced jury deliberations by impeaching bias and credibility. | Yes; substantial risk of different verdict if evidence admitted. |
| Whether the evidence could have supported impeachment/bias of KST witnesses. | Impeachment value was minimal. | Affidavit provided a holistic portrayal of KST as a violent gang affecting credibility. | Yes; impeachment potential was significant. |
| What standard of review applies? | Deferential standard is appropriate for new-trial decisions. | Trial-judge credibility and discretion should be respected. | Deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applied; no clear abuse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tucceri, 412 Mass. 401 (Mass. 1992) (exculpatory material; standard for new-trial relief)
- Commonwealth v. Healy, 438 Mass. 672 (Mass. 2003) (expands notion of exculpatory evidence)
- Commonwealth v. St. Germain, 381 Mass. 256 (Mass. 1980) (broadly defines exculpatory evidence and materiality)
- Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (Mass. 1986) (test for prejudice in new-trial context)
- Commonwealth v. De Christoforo, 360 Mass. 531 (Mass. 1971) (special deference for trial-judge credibility/decision)
- Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 425 Mass. 349 (Mass. 1997) (impeachment; cross-examination for bias; witness credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Noeun Sok, 439 Mass. 428 (Mass. 2003) (bias-based impeachment rights of defendants)
- Commonwealth v. Tam Bui, 419 Mass. 392 (Mass. 1995) (bias and cross-examination standards)