Commonwealth v. Roman
470 Mass. 85
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Late night Jan 28–29, 2010: victim and three others (Angel, Soto, Felipe) rode in Soto's girlfriend's Nissan Altima after buying cocaine; defendant joined and sat in left rear seat. Victim suffered three gunshot wounds to the head and was later dumped from the car.
- Witnesses Soto and Felipe (who had cooperation agreements and had murder indictments nol-prossed) testified that the defendant shot the victim inside the car (two shots to the back of the head) and then fired a final shot through the right rear door into the victim's temple before driving away.
- Corroborating evidence: multiple security-camera videos showing the vehicle and movements of occupants; cellphone call records linking the defendant to a 2:04 a.m. call to Angel near the time the car returned to Sam's Food; DNA and blood-transfer evidence tying the victim's blood to the defendant's clothing/boots and the Altima interior.
- Defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty, a Rule 36 (speedy trial) dismissal, and a renewed motion alleging delayed discovery/prosecutorial misconduct; also sought mistrial for alleged jury tampering and challenged jury instructions about cooperating witnesses (Ciampa instruction).
- The trial judge denied the required-finding motion, denied the Rule 36 and renewed motions, refused to declare a mistrial after juror voir dire about audience misconduct, and gave cautionary instructions about cooperating witnesses; defendant convicted of deliberately premeditated murder and possession of a class B substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / required finding | Commonwealth: evidence (eye-witness testimony + video + DNA + blood transfer) supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt | Roman: testimony of cooperating witnesses unreliable; others (Felipe, Soto, St. Amand) show someone else likely fired the fatal shot; no motive | Affirmed — viewed in Commonwealth's favor, circumstantial and forensic evidence corroborated witnesses and supported conviction |
| Speedy trial (Mass. R. Crim. P. 36) | Commonwealth: delays were excludable (defendant acquiesced to continuances; tolling while motion pending) | Roman: delay >12 months from arraignment to trial warrants dismissal | Affirmed — court found excludable periods and acquiescence; no Rule 36 violation |
| Renewed dismissal alleging prosecutorial misconduct / delayed discovery | Commonwealth: delays due to lab, police, and oversight; not intentional; no prejudice | Roman: belated disclosure of videos and discovery prejudiced defense and warrants dismissal | Affirmed — judge found nonintentional oversight and no prejudice; denial proper under Rule 36(c) and Barker analysis |
| Jury tampering / mistrial sua sponte | Commonwealth: judge conducted individual voir dire and excluded disruptive spectators; jurors professed impartiality | Roman: family members' conduct (threats, spitting) created serious prejudice requiring mistrial | Affirmed — judge properly performed juror voir dire, observed demeanor, found no solid evidence of distinct bias and did not abuse discretion |
| Ciampa instruction re cooperating witnesses | Commonwealth: judge's instructions sufficiently cautioned jury to scrutinize cooperating witnesses; prosecutor did not vouch | Roman: judge failed to emphasize incentives and to tell jury that government did not know if witnesses were truthful | Affirmed — no reversible error; judge gave heightened-scrutiny instructions, defense declined redaction, prosecutor did not vouch |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing denial of required finding)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional sufficiency standard for conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 406 Mass. 257 (instructions on testimony of cooperating witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Denehy, 466 Mass. 723 (Rule 36 analysis and excludable periods)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy trial balancing test, referenced for Rule 36(c) prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Tennison, 440 Mass. 553 (individual voir dire when juror exposed to extraneous influence)
- Commonwealth v. Meuse, 423 Mass. 831 (when prosecutor vouches and limits on instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 434 Mass. 165 (supporting premeditated murder conviction from close-range shots)