Commonwealth v. Smith, 961 N.E.2d 566

Two men killed Julio Ceus and Natal ie Sumner during a January 2006 apartment robbery in Allston, Boston; Valcy and Romain were wounded, Bjelf uninjured.
Defendant, who began buying cocaine from Julio in 2005, was identified by Valcy as one of the assailants.
In March 2006, defendant was indicted; September 2007 conviction on two murder counts (first-degree) under deliberate premeditation and felony-murder theories.
Trial included challenges over peremptory strikes; juror 78 was seated after the judge found the strike race-based but non-legitimate, and the juror served as an alternate.
Commonwealth relied on cell phone records and surveillance video; no forensic link tied defendant to the murders.
Defendant sought to introduce third-party culprit evidence (Bermane and Goodwin) to implicate others; the court limited such evidence and allowed limited questioning on a state-of-mind theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of the peremptory challenge against juror 78 was reversible	Bockman supports reversal when improper strike seats biased juror	Judge improperly denied peremptory challenge	Not reversible; juror did not participate in deliberations
Proper admission of third-party culprit evidence via Bermane and Goodwin	Evidence could show another culpable party with substantial links	Evidence had substantial probative value and low prejudice	Exclusion affirmed; lacks substantial connecting links and speculative
Hearsay and mental-condition exception relevance of fear statements	Statements of Julio’s fear could be admissible to prove state of mind	Fear of unknown third parties is admissible to show motive	Statements not admissible under mental-condition exception; not probative of guilt
Constitutional and evidentiary framework for third-party culprit evidence	Framework aligns with Holmes and Ruell; broad admissibility	Rule overly broad; could violate 6th/14th Amendment due process	Substantial connecting links doctrine valid; evidence properly excluded
G. L. c. 278, § 33E review viability	No basis to set aside verdicts on appeal	Excessive flaws warrant new trial	No basis; judgments affirmed

Commonwealth v. Bockman, 442 Mass. 757 (Mass. 2004) (reversible error requires actual deliberation by challenged juror)
Commonwealth v. Green, 420 Mass. 771 (Mass. 1995) (bias concerns in peremptory challenges)
Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 432 Mass. 578 (Mass. 2000) (substantial connecting links in third-party evidence)
Commonwealth v. Rosa, 422 Mass. 18 (Mass. 1996) (admissibility of third-party evidence guided by probative value)
Commonwealth v. Conkey, 443 Mass. 60 (Mass. 2004) (probative value versus prejudice in third-party evidence)
Commonwealth v. Keizer, 377 Mass. 264 (Mass. 1979) (limits on admissible third-party culprit evidence)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (framework for evaluating third-party culprit evidence)
Commonwealth v. Ruell, 459 Mass. 126 (Mass. 2011) (substantial connecting links doctrine as applied to third-party evidence)
Commonwealth v. Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782 (Mass. 2009) (admissibility of third-party evidence and balancing probative value)
Commonwealth v. Magraw, 426 Mass. 589 (Mass. 1998) (victim’s state of mind and admissibility limitations)
Commonwealth v. Cyr, 425 Mass. 89 (Mass. 1997) (limitations on admissibility of victim’s mental state)