128 N.E.3d 50
Mass.2019Background
- Victim Edward Figueroa was found shot multiple times in his girlfriend's Dennisport apartment on Feb 24, 2000; five .38 caliber projectiles recovered, likely from a revolver.
- Defendant Charles Robinson had a prior relationship with the victim: the victim sold marijuana for Robinson and traveled to Robinson's area for drugs; witnesses saw Robinson with a revolver days before the killing.
- On the night of the murder Robinson visited the victim; neighbors heard gunfire ~10:15 PM and a car speeding away; Robinson and his car were gone when the victim's girlfriend returned ~10:30 PM.
- Cell-site location information placed Robinson making calls later that night from Mattapoisett, consistent with time to travel from the crime scene to that area after a ~10:15 PM departure.
- Evidence of consciousness of guilt: Robinson reportedly asked his girlfriend the next morning whether he had been home earlier, and while jailed later he threatened a cellmate with wording implying the other thought he had no gun.
- Defendant's theory: a third party (Ryan Ferguson) was the shooter; Commonwealth argued motive, means, opportunity, ballistic consistency, CSLI, and consciousness-of-guilt evidence supported conviction for first-degree murder.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Robinson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to identify shooter and prove first-degree murder | Circumstantial evidence (motive, means, opportunity, CSLI, ballistics, consciousness of guilt) permits a reasonable inference Robinson was shooter and acted with premeditation/extreme cruelty | Identification was speculative and insufficient; judge should have allowed required finding of not guilty | Conviction affirmed: circumstantial evidence when viewed together supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and supports both deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty theories |
| Exclusion of counsel from in-chambers colloquy with juror no. 2-7 | Judge's in-chambers inquiry transcript was read verbatim to parties afterward; counsel had opportunity to respond | Exclusion violated confrontation/right to be present during consequential juror inquiry | No reversible error: defendant waived-preserved argument; transcript and subsequent handling rebut substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Voir dire of remaining jurors after juror no. 2-7's statements (potential taint/premature discussion) | Judge did not need to question each juror because juror's statements did not show a serious question of prejudice; judge gave admonitions | Requested individual juror voir dire to ensure impartiality due to possible exposure to bias/premature discussion | No abuse of discretion: judge credited juror's representations; limited, non-case-specific discussions did not require individual voir dire; minor improper phrasing of admonition not prejudicial |
| Juror no. 1-5 concern about witness (Ferguson) and juror's son at same facility — need for voir dire | Reassurance and administrative steps were sufficient; juror gave no indication of partiality | Requested voir dire to probe possible extraneous influence or fear affecting impartiality | No error: judge reasonably concluded no substantial risk of prejudice and acted within discretion |
| Admission of prior bad acts (victim obtaining drugs from defendant) | Admissible to show motive, relationship, and context; judge instructed jury on limited purpose | Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and cumulative to argument evidence | Properly admitted: probative of motive/relationship and not outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Prosecutor's closing argument statements about victim "regularly" getting drugs and acting as defendant's "bodyguard" | Argued as permissible inference from the testimony and facts presented | Argued statements misstated evidence or went beyond record | No miscarriage of justice: comments were fair inferences from testimony and unobjected-to at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 467 Mass. 291 (circumstantial evidence may alone support conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Cohen, 412 Mass. 375 (circumstantial evidence of identity can suffice)
- Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409 (definition and proof of deliberate premeditation)
- Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (factors for extreme atrocity or cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502 (right to presence for consequential juror inquiries)
- Commonwealth v. Francis, 432 Mass. 353 (when to conduct individual juror voir dire for extraneous/prejudicial exposure)
- Commonwealth v. Martino, 412 Mass. 267 (reading back in-chambers juror colloquy and counsel's opportunity to respond)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (admissibility balancing for prior bad acts under §404(b))