Commonwealth v. Rosa
468 Mass. 231
| Mass. | 2014Background
- On Jan 26, 2011, David Acevedo was shot dead; three men (Rosa, Jerell Brunson, Marcus Dixon) were observed at the scene; bystanders saw revolvers and the three leave together in Dixon’s Honda.
- Police later located the Honda at Brunson’s residence; inside Brunson’s sleeping area they found multiple shell casings (.357/.38), two live .44 caliber bullets, and Rosa’s driver’s license hidden in the box spring.
- Ballistics linked multiple casings to the same weapon; investigators recovered .44 caliber projectile fragments at the scene but not the murder weapon(s).
- Rosa testified he was present but unarmed and that Brunson and Dixon began shooting unexpectedly; the Commonwealth tried Rosa as both principal and under a joint venture (accomplice) theory.
- A recorded jailhouse phone call by Rosa to an associate (partly redacted) included slang, profanity, references to firearms, and statements the Commonwealth argued showed consciousness of guilt and joint venture participation.
- Trial court admitted the physical evidence and the redacted recording; a jury convicted Rosa of first-degree murder (premeditation) and unlawful possession of a firearm. Rosa appealed; convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Rosa's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of shell casings, live rounds, and driver’s license found at Brunson’s house | Items were relevant to show means, connection to perpetrators, and support joint venture; admissible even if not in Rosa’s constructive possession | No proof Rosa knew of or exercised control over items; admission was improper and prejudicial | Admissible — relevant to joint venture and to show means/connection; judge did not abuse discretion |
| Admission of recorded jailhouse phone call (prejudice & need for expert) | Recording (redacted) directly relevant: statements about shooting, firearms, consciousness of guilt; jurors can apply trial context without expert | Recording was unduly prejudicial (slang, racial epithets, profanity) and needed expert to interpret street jargon | Admissible — probative value outweighed prejudice; expert not required because context was provided at trial |
| Jail monitoring/forwarding call summary to police — constitutional challenge | Monitoring under facility rules serves penological purposes; routine recording and referral for threats permissible | Monitoring and sending summary to police violated First/Fourth Amendment and required individualized justification | No constitutional violation — warned calls may be recorded; prophylactic monitoring rule acceptable; forwarding threats to law enforcement justified |
| Sufficiency of joint venture theory; unanimity / special verdict requirement | Need only prove knowing participation and shared intent for joint venture murder; no requirement to prove defendant knew coventurers were armed; general verdict fine | Commonwealth had to prove Rosa knew others were armed; jury needed specific unanimity (principal vs accomplice) and special verdict slip/instruction | Guilty verdict upheld — under Britt court need not prove knowledge of weapon for joint venture murder; Zanetti controls on no special unanimity/special verdict slip requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Britt, 465 Mass. 87 (Mass. 2013) (for joint venture: need only prove knowing participation and shared intent; knowledge of coventurer’s weapon not required when weapon possession is not element)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2009) (general verdict acceptable on alternative theories of liability; no requirement jury specify principal vs accomplice)
- Commonwealth v. Fayerweather, 406 Mass. 78 (Mass. 1989) (relevance standard: evidence admissible if it has tendency to make fact more probable)
- Commonwealth v. Arroyo, 442 Mass. 135 (Mass. 2004) (definition and scope of relevant evidence)
- Commonwealth v. McGee, 467 Mass. 141 (Mass. 2014) (weapons-related items admissible to show means; direct proof of particular weapon not required)
- Commonwealth v. Spencer, 465 Mass. 32 (Mass. 2013) (trial judge’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena, 454 Mass. 685 (Mass. 2009) (upholding prophylactic monitoring/recording of inmate communications and forwarding content for safety concerns)
- Cacicio v. Secretary of Pub. Safety, 422 Mass. 764 (Mass. 1996) (prison monitoring regulations serve legitimate penological interests)