Commonwealth v. Roy
985 N.E.2d 1164
Mass.2013Background
- Defendant Robert Roy was convicted of first-degree murder for his wife in 2010 under extreme atrocity or cruelty theory, based on 1986 events.
- Victim, age 19 at disappearance in March 1986, married Roy in 1984 and separated late 1985 with ongoing threats and violence.
- Roy exhibited jealous and confrontational behavior; he followed the victim, confronted others dating her, and moved about her family’s home.
- The victim was found in a Dartmouth quarry in 1990 with blunt-force head trauma; victim’s body was bound to a cement block with a rope.
- Roy confessed to killings off and on; DNA on jacket matched victim’s DNA on a stamp from a letter; a 2007 confession and 2007-2008 jail calls surfaced during trial.
- Jury acquitted deliberate premeditation; defense theory included third-party killer and possible disappearance; prosecution relied on physical and circumstantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of medical examiner testimony | Roy contends examiner speculative about cause | Roy argues lack of stated cause to skull trauma | No error; testimony based on medical certainty and expertise |
| Sufficiency of evidence for extreme atrocity or cruelty | Commonwealth argues Cunneen factors and inferences support cruelty | Roy argues evidence insufficient for cruel/atrocity theory | Sufficient evidence; inferences supported by admissions and physical injuries |
| Admission of jailhouse telephone recording | Recording connected jacket stain to murder; probative and non-cumulative | Prejudicial effect outweighed by relevance | No error; recording properly weighed and curative instructions given |
| Prosecutor's closing argument | Prosecutor’s statements drew inferences from evidence | Arguments exceeded evidence and mischaracterized facts | No reversible error; remarks grounded in evidence and, where flawed, not prejudicial overall |
| Dangerous weapon instruction | Charge improperly suggested use of weapon by defendant | Instruction allowed inference of malice | Proper; charge viewed in context with evidence and other instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 437 Mass. 554 (Mass. 2002) (medical certainty standard for expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Nadworny, 396 Mass. 342 (Mass. 1985) (expert testimony admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (Mass. 1983) (Cunneen factors for extreme atrocity or cruelty)
- Commonwealth v. Moses, 436 Mass. 598 (Mass. 2002) ( Cunneen factors do not violate due process; circumstantial evidence ok)
- Commonwealth v. Podkowka, 445 Mass. 692 (Mass. 2006) (inference of extreme atrocity from severe head trauma)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195 (Mass. 2005) (evidence of extreme cruelty supported by injuries)
- Commonwealth v. Raymond, 424 Mass. 382 (Mass. 1997) (inference of cruelty from evidentiary context)
- Commonwealth v. Flebotte, 417 Mass. 348 (Mass. 1994) (nonprejudicial error standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Dunn, 407 Mass. 798 (Mass. 1990) (relevance and non-cumulative evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Corriveau, 396 Mass. 319 (Mass. 1985) (hypothetical dialogue analysis in closing arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Kozec, 399 Mass. 514 (Mass. 1987) (closing argument must be grounded in evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770 (Mass. 2005) (courts assess permissible inferences from testimony)