Commonwealth v. Shea, 460 Mass. 163

Six shots fired from a passing white Toyota at a crowd on the front steps of a Springfield house; one shot killed a fourteen-year-old girl, Dymond McGowan.
Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on deliberate premeditation theory, plus firearm charges.
Shooting cadre included SWAT Team members; the house targeted was a hang-out for the Bristol Street gang; the shooter was in the rear seat when firing six shots.
Pistol used in the crime was recovered with tie to the defendant, who admitted involvement in the shooting to at least one witness.
Jurisdiction involved Massachusetts, with issues on jury selection protocol, evidentiary rulings, and verdict form ambiguity.
Court conducted a thorough 33E review and affirmed judgments, declining to reduce guilt or order a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury selection protocol and potential bias	Commonwealth argues protocol did not abuse discretion.	Gants contends mental-note method jeopardizes impartiality.	No abuse; protocol acceptable though discouraged.
Adoptive admission from silence	Commonwealth maintains silence after accusation admissible.	Silence should not be admitted unless proper conditions met.	Judge properly admitted as adoptive admission; no prejudice shown.
Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement	Commonwealth contends excluded statement would impeach Arnold.	Excluded statement relevant to credibility.	Error to exclude; not prejudicial given other testimony.
Transferred intent instruction	Commonwealth asserts instruction properly conveyed theory of transferred intent.	Instruction could misstate elements for first-degree murder.	Instruction viewed as correct overall; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage.
Clarity of verdict finding on deliberate premeditation	Foreperson failure to mark deliberate premeditation creates potential ambiguity.	Unambiguous verdict since only theory given; no need to clarify.	No error; verdict not defective given single theory and unanimous verdict.

Commonwealth v. Amazeen, 375 Mass. 73 (Mass. 1978) (voir dire discretion; impartial jury standard)
Commonwealth v. McKay, 363 Mass. 220 (Mass. 1973) (jury impartiality review for abuse of discretion)
Commonwealth v. Lopes, 440 Mass. 731 (Mass. 2004) (scope of voir dire and impartiality rulings)
Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281 (Mass. 2003) (unanimity and multiple theories of guilt)
Commonwealth v. Berry, 420 Mass. 95 (Mass. 1995) (unanimity; specificity of theory on verdict form)
Commonwealth v. Accetta, 422 Mass. 642 (Mass. 1996) (special verdict requirements for multifactor theories)
Commonwealth v. Braley, 449 Mass. 316 (Mass. 2007) (adoptive admission and silence as evidence)
Commonwealth v. Olszewski, 416 Mass. 707 (Mass. 1993) (adoptive admission standards for silence)
Commonwealth v. St. Germain, 381 Mass. 256 (Mass. 1980) (juror note-taking and process; prior recognition)
Commonwealth v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457 (Mass. 1905) (historical stance on juror note-taking)
Commonwealth v. Dykens, 438 Mass. 827 (Mass. 2003) (juror note-taking permissibility)
Commonwealth v. Wilborne, 382 Mass. 241 (Mass. 1981) (note-taking permissibility)
Commonwealth v. Fisher, 433 Mass. 340 (Mass. 2001) (utility of hypotheticals in jury instructions)