Commonwealth v. Reavis, 465 Mass. 875

Background

Defendant stabbed his wife to death in their shared apartment; identity was not disputed and children witnessed or discovered the attack.
Relationship history: long-term volatile relationship with alcohol, jealousy, and accusations of infidelity; recent reunification before the killing.
Night of the killing: defendant drank, accused wife of cheating, left Karen Browder’s apartment with her, returned home ~2:30 a.m., fetched a large kitchen knife, knelt and stabbed the victim in the left chest; victim bled out and died; defendant left and later surrendered at a hospital.
Trial: defendant convicted of first-degree murder (premeditation theory); defense argued lack of premeditation because of intoxication and extreme provocation (wife’s alleged infidelity).
Posttrial motions: defendant’s new-trial motion (claiming counsel refused plea negotiations) denied after hearing; motion under Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2) to reduce verdict to second-degree murder denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of substitute medical examiner	Commonwealth: substitute may testify to his own opinions based on autopsy report/photos when original examiner is not employed/in another state	Parker’s testimony violated Confrontation; Commonwealth should have shown unavailability of the examiner who did the autopsy	Allowed substitute testimony; some factual statements tied to the autopsy were improper but harmless because cumulative and not outcome-determinative
Scope of substitute expert testimony	Commonwealth: substitute can opine on cause of death/time/force based on records/photos	Defendant: substitute may not testify to underlying autopsy facts unless report admitted	Court held substitute may give opinions based on materials experts normally rely on but may not recite underlying report facts not admitted; error harmless here
Request for individual voir dire on domestic violence	Commonwealth/judge: collective, carefully framed question and sidebar follow-up sufficed; judge has broad discretion	Defendant: domestic violence likely to produce extraneous influences; individual voir dire required	Denied motion for individualized voir dire; court found no abuse of discretion and jurors who answered affirmatively were examined at sidebar
Motion to reduce verdict to second-degree murder (Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2))	Defendant: killing was spontaneous, influenced by intoxication and paranoia; reduction to second degree is more consonant with justice	Commonwealth/judge: evidence supports premeditation; jury’s verdict and prosecutor’s refusal to plea reflect weight of evidence	Denial of reduction upheld; judge did not abuse discretion because weight of evidence supported first-degree premeditation

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Emeny, 463 Mass. 138 (addresses review standard and limits on substitute medical examiner testimony)
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 464 Mass. 56 (upholding substitute examiner testimony when original examiner no longer employed)
Commonwealth v. Leng, 463 Mass. 779 (affirming use of substitute examiner without showing unavailability)
Commonwealth v. Durand, 457 Mass. 574 (discussing when substitute testimony is not harmless)
Commonwealth v. Avila, 454 Mass. 744 (expert reliance on autopsy reports and photographs)
Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (permitted bases for expert opinions and limits on facts from reports)
Commonwealth v. Phim, 462 Mass. 470 (harmless-error analysis for substitute examiner testimony)
Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249 (error by substitute examiner held harmless where facts were cumulative)
Commonwealth v. Lopes, 440 Mass. 731 (standard for individual voir dire and trial judge discretion)
Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770 (declining to expand mandatory individual voir dire categories)
Commonwealth v. Woodward, 427 Mass. 659 (standards for rule 25(b)(2) reduction and judge deference)
Commonwealth v. Rolon, 438 Mass. 808 (relationship between rule 25(b)(2) and appellate §33E reduction analysis)