Commonwealth v. Scesny
34 N.E.3d 17
Mass.2015Background
- In 1996 Theresa Stone was found dead from ligature strangulation; injuries and bloodstains were present and an autopsy was performed. DNA and biological evidence were preserved and later tested.
- A rectal swab contained sperm whose major DNA profile matched Alex Scesny; the statistical match was extremely strong. Other stains on the victim’s clothing/body contained DNA mixtures that included the defendant as a contributor in some samples.
- The defendant conceded he had sexual intercourse with the victim but maintained it was consensual; defense presented alternate suspects (James Webber and Everett Carlson) and highlighted ambiguities in the forensic record.
- At trial (2012) a jury convicted Scesny of first‑degree murder (three theories) and aggravated rape; he appealed, raising sufficiency, expert‑testimony, Confrontation Clause, identification/photograph evidence, prosecutor misconduct in closing, and jury instructions on third‑party culprit evidence.
- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the murder convictions (deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty theories) but reversed the aggravated‑rape conviction and the related felony‑murder theory because the evidence was insufficient to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Scesny) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder and aggravated rape | DNA and bloodstain pattern, absence of disturbance of stains, injuries, and bar testimony supported non‑consensual intercourse followed by fatal strangulation | DNA proves intercourse only; forensic evidence is ambiguous and equally consistent with consensual sex then murder; insufficient to prove lack of consent | Murder convictions (premeditation; extreme atrocity/cruelty) affirmed; aggravated rape reversed for insufficiency (felony‑murder set aside) |
| Admission of criminalist McKillop's opinion on expected drainage/transference and disturbed stains | Her extensive crime‑lab and crime‑scene experience qualified her to give opinions based on observed patterns | She lacked specialized anatomical/medical qualifications for some opinions; testimony exceeded foundation | Admission was within trial judge's discretion; no abuse; opinions admissible as experience‑based criminalistics testimony |
| Admission of autopsy report and substitute ME testimony (Confrontation Clause) | Autopsy findings and photos were admissible; substitute ME could describe injuries and cause | Autopsy report by non‑testifying ME is testimonial hearsay; substitute ME may not testify to underlying report findings — Confrontation violation | Erroneous admission of the report and some substitute ME testimony, but no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice (defense used the testimony; photos independently admissible; findings not contested) |
| Prosecutor's closing and third‑party culprit argument/ jury instruction on third‑party evidence | Prosecutor can argue credibility and attack the third‑party theory; no instruction required beyond standard burden explanation | Prosecutor improperly disparaged the defendant's right to present a defense and mischaracterized evidence; requested specific instruction on third‑party culprit evidence | Prosecutor's remarks were improper and near‑repetitive but, given DNA strength and curative instruction, not prejudicial enough to warrant new trial; requested special third‑party instruction not required though it would have been appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Earle, 458 Mass. 341 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (framework for affirming first‑degree murder where evidence supports a theory)
- Commonwealth v. McCourt, 438 Mass. 486 (rape requires lack of consent; defining essence of rape)
- Commonwealth v. Cheremond, 461 Mass. 397 (absence of consent is essential element of rape)
- Commonwealth v. Frangipane, 433 Mass. 527 (trial court discretion to qualify expert witnesses)
- Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291 (admissibility of crime‑lab opinion testimony based on experience)
- Commonwealth v. Rogers, 459 Mass. 249 (autopsy photographs as independently admissible evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Scott, 470 Mass. 320 (evidence of sexual assault and strangulation may support extreme atrocity/cruelty theory)
- Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395 (no per se requirement to give special third‑party culprit instruction when burden instruction covers it)
- Commonwealth v. Shelley, 374 Mass. 466 (prosecutor's role and obligations; quoted prosecutorial duties)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutor as representative of sovereign with duty to seek justice)