Commonwealth v. Riley, 467 Mass. 799

Background

2007 Plymouth County grand jury indicted defendant and Carolyn Riley for Rebecca Riley’s murder; separate trials in 2010; defendant convicted of first-degree murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty; claims trial counsel ineffective, insufficient malice, improper bad act evidence, and denial of a new-trial and toxicologist funds; appellate review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E; diagnosis and medication history show Rebecca received clonidine and sedating meds; evidence showed defendant directed medication and exposure worsened Rebecca’s condition; death attributed to clonidine overdose, sedatives, pneumonia, or combination; judge instructed on parental duty to obtain medical care; trial record includes extensive toxicology testimony and competing expert opinions.
Defendant’s trial centered on challenging the Commonwealth’s overdose theory and offering alternative cause of death (fulminant pneumonia) presented by Dr. Arden, with cross-examination of toxicologists and highlighting FDA non-approval of clonidine for children; the defense sought to introduce Lanigan hearing and funds for a toxicologist; the Appeals Court affirmed convictions and denied motions.
Carolyn Riley’s separate trial occurred prior to defendant’s; the verdict and evidentiary handling influenced trial strategy and post-trial requests.
The record includes missing clonidine pills, dosage manipulation, and expert opinions on postmortem drug levels (femoral vs heart blood) and volume of distribution debates.
G. L. c. 33E review applied to assess whether substantial injustice occurred, ultimately affirming judgments and denying relief sought by defendant.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Defendant contends trial counsel failed to adequately investigate toxicology	Counsel’s strategy reasonably pursued alternative cause of death	No substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice; not manifestly unreasonable strategy
Malice/sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence showed intent to kill or substantial likelihood of death	Insufficient prima facie malice under prongs; Earle distinguished	Sufficient malice established under first and third prongs; third-prong malice supported by defendant’s conduct and supervision of care
Admission of bad act evidence and closing arguments	Bad acts showed state of mind and intent toward Rebecca	Evidence unfairly prejudicial; improper sympathy appeals	Evidence properly admitted; improper closing remark was isolated and did not cause miscarriage of justice
Parental duty instruction and Cunneen factors	Instruction allowed Cunneen-based consideration of failure to obtain care	Instruction could mislead jury on Cunneen framework	Instruction considered as a whole; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage; Cunneen factors adequately conveyed
New trial and toxicologist funding rulings	Motion for new trial and need for toxicologist funds raise substantial issues	Judge acted within discretion; no hearing warranted; no abuse of discretion in funding denial	No error; denial affirmed; no basis to grant new trial or funds

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 443 Mass. 799 (2005) (standard for appellate review of ineffective assistance in murder cases)
Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (1992) (27-year standard for c. 33E backward-looking review)
Commonwealth v. Leng, 463 Mass. 779 (2012) (c. 278, § 33E standard when reviewing new-trial decisions)
Commonwealth v. Walker, 466 Mass. 268 (2013) (constructive approach to jury instruction review and Cunneen factors)
Commonwealth v. Mosher, 455 Mass. 811 (2010) (trial-counsel strategy evaluated for manifest unreasonableness)
Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 446 Mass. 435 (2006) (assessing strategic decisions in ineffective-assistance claims)
Commonwealth v. Denis, 442 Mass. 617 (2004) (standard for evaluating trial counsel performance)
Commonwealth v. Farley, 432 Mass. 153 (2000) (example of failure to preserve defenses and evidence)
Commonwealth v. LeBeau, 451 Mass. 244 (2008) (admissibility of prior bad acts and related evidence)
Commonwealth v. Cardarelli, 433 Mass. 427 (2001) (use of acts after offense to show state of mind)
Commonwealth v. Rice, 427 Mass. 203 (1998) (prior trial evidence on defendant’s state of mind)
Commonwealth v. Gallison, 383 Mass. 659 (1981) (motive and intent evidence in homicide cases)
Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (1983) (Cunneen factors for extreme atrocity or cruelty)
Commonwealth v. Earle, 458 Mass. 341 (2010) (malice standard for plain and strong likelihood of death)
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994) (Lanigan standard for expert disclosure and evidence)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)