Commonwealth v. Perez
460 Mass. 683
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Perez was convicted in MA Superior Court of first-degree murder and witness intimidation; appeal alleging trial judge erred on voir dire about scientific evidence, failure to give Bowden instruction, admission of opinion testimony, admission of prior bad acts and a diary entry, and denial of a required finding on witness intimidation; case involved deliberate premeditation and felony-murder theories with armed robbery as predicate; dec. 13, 2001 sequence included meeting, shooting, body disposal, and subsequent attempts to conceal evidence; key witnesses included Michelle Chisholm and Kerrilee Dube; procedural posture includes motions and evidentiary challenges on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire about scientific evidence violated Bowden | Commonwealth argues voir dire adequately screened for CSI effect bias | Perez contends the questioning improperly shaped juror views | No reversible error; voir dire within discretion and not foreordained bias |
| Bowden instruction on lack of police investigation ignored | Commonwealth contends judge properly exercised discretion | Perez argues essential issues were removed from jury consideration | No reversible error; instruction not required and issues remained for defense |
| Admission of Chisholm's opinion on culpability | Chisholm’s testimony supported by rehabilitation of credibility | Opinion testimony of defendant’s culpability was improper | Error to admit but not prejudicial given strong circumstantial evidence and lack of impact on verdict |
| Admission of prior bad act evidence (firearm possession and Dube/son argument) | Evidence linked defendant to weapon and state of mind | Evidence of bad acts inadmissible for propensity | Firearm testimony admissible; Dube-son exchange admitted but not unduly prejudicial; overall not reversible error |
| Admission of Dube's journal and foundation/authentication under 233 §23 | Journal authenticated and supports inconsistent statements | Lacked proper foundation; omitted entry could matter | Admission permissible; any harm negligible given other evidence and defense options |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (Mass. 1980) (instruction not required to cover lack of evidence; Bowden defense)
- Commonwealth v. Garuti, 454 Mass. 48 (Mass. 2009) (voir dire and bias in juror impartiality)
- Commonwealth v. Lodge, 431 Mass. 461 (Mass. 2000) (allowing or excluding testimony regarding state of mind properly scoped)
- Commonwealth v. Lennon, 399 Mass. 443 (Mass. 1987) (limits on lay opinion on culpability)
- Commonwealth v. LeBeau, 451 Mass. 244 (Mass. 2008) (evidence of prior acts to prove state of mind)
- Commonwealth v. Seng, 456 Mass. 490 (Mass. 2010) (CSI effect and juror expectations regarding forensic evidence)
- Commonwealth v. West, 312 Mass. 438 (Mass. 1942) (prior inconsistent statements and foundation principles)
- Commonwealth v. McIntosh, 259 Mass. 388 (Mass. 1927) (procedural requirements for impeachment by prior statements)
- Commonwealth v. LaCorte, 373 Mass. 700 (Mass. 1977) (authenticity and chain of custody foundations)