Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 463 Mass. 402

Background

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
Victim, age 52, owned a multi-family Boston home and had lived with the defendant for about three years before marrying him in March 2003 as a “favor.”
In April 2003, the victim was killed; she had dinner with her extended family on April 17 and was last checked on April 19, when her body was found in her apartment.
Forensic evidence included knives found in the apartment, blood on doorknobs and the defendant’s watchband, and a fingerprint match linking the defendant to the downstairs basement doorknob.
DNA testing showed the victim’s DNA on the doorknob and the defendant’s watchband, supporting the theory of involvement; the DNA statistics were presented to the jury.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of hearsay evidence	Victim’s statement to her daughter about going to pick up the defendant was hearsay.	Statement contained hearsay; should have been excluded.	Admissible as present-intent exception; no ineffective assistance.
Admission of fingerprint expert testimony	Officer LeBlanc’s testimony as fingerprint expert was improper due to credibility concerns.	Challenge to the expert undermines admissibility.	Admissible; foundational requirements met and credibility for jury to assess.
Prosecutor’s direct examination of Rivera	Rivera’s testimony included defendant’s implied confession; prosecutor properly elicited statements.	Answers framed as the defendant’s admission; improper foundation.	Isolated error; not a substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice.
Prosecutor’s closing argument	Prosecutor attacked defense counsel, overstated certain testimony, and made arguable mischaracterizations.	Closing violated fairness by disparaging defense and misstate testimony.	No substantial likelihood of miscarriage; remarks were within permissible appellate review and context.
Jury instructions on equally reasonable inferences	Instruction allowed inference of guilt when equally consistent with innocence.	Slip of the tongue potentially affected verdict.	Contextual reading of charge shows no substantial likelihood of miscarriage.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Avila, 454 Mass. 744 (Mass. 2009) (admissibility of statements indicating present intent to act)
Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 381 Mass. 306 (Mass. 1980) (hearsay exception for present intent)
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (Mass. 1994) (foundational requirements for expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 445 Mass. 626 (Mass. 2005) (reliability and application of expert processes)
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 457 Mass. 773 (Mass. 2010) (general framework for admissibility of expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. Shanley, 455 Mass. 752 (Mass. 2010) (credibility of admitted expert testimony for jury)
Commonwealth v. Semedo, 456 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2010) (prosecutor closing argument—contextual review; fair comment)
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 428 Mass. 455 (Mass. 1998) (prosecutor may comment on defense tactics observed by jurors)
Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 429 Mass. 502 (Mass. 1999) (prosecutor closing rhetoric in response to defense attacks)
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 444 Mass. 526 (Mass. 2005) (requisite proof beyond reasonable doubt; subsidiary facts standard)
Commonwealth v. Sunahara, 455 Mass. 832 (Mass. 2010) (charge error reviewed in context of whole charge)
Commonwealth v. Szerlong, 457 Mass. 858 (Mass. 2010) (remarks in closing arguments judged in context)
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004) (necessity of DiGiambattista guidance for recording/interrogations)
Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 445 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2005) (confrontation clause considerations for testimonial statements)