Commonwealth v. Tassinari
466 Mass. 340
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Defendant admitted shooting and killing his wife in the driveway on April 22, 2008; charged with first-degree murder (deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty). Jury convicted on November 1, 2010.
- Marriage had been strained for months; electronic communications, texts, and testimony showed recurring disputes about alleged infidelity, requests for divorce, and proposals for an "open marriage." Defendant repeatedly expressed jealousy and control issues.
- On the night of the killing the couple argued; victim left briefly and returned. Multiple witnesses heard many shots; victim was shot eighteen times and died of extensive wounds. Defendant called 911 and told police he shot his wife for cheating.
- Defense theory: the victim’s sudden oral confession of infidelity caused defendant to lose control (heat of passion) and should reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. Defense presented testimony and a forensic psychologist supporting impulsivity but no mental illness.
- Commonwealth’s evidence included autopsy photos, firearms and ammunition from defendant’s safe, electronic communications (including sexual-content references), witness statements about prior incidents of fear, and the defendant’s firearms training/certification.
- Trial issues raised on appeal: admissibility of various evidence (hearsay/state-of-mind, excited utterance, autopsy and photo evidence, sexual-material evidence, firearms evidence), a juror’s dual citizenship, prosecutor’s closing, jury instructions on heat of passion, and request for 33E relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of victim’s out-of-court statements (sister‑in‑law) | Statements show victim’s state of mind and motive; admissible under state‑of‑mind exception | Statements were hearsay and prejudicial | Admitted: relevant to victim’s dissatisfaction and defendant’s awareness; no error (Qualls, Bins, Andrade cited) |
| Admission of victim’s statement to best friend (alleged assault) | Commonwealth: excited utterance showing ongoing discord in marriage | Defendant: not spontaneous, improperly used as bad‑act evidence | Admitted as excited utterance and limited by instruction; not unduly prejudicial |
| Autopsy and dog photograph evidence | Autopsy photos show different wounds relevant to intent/cruelty | Defendant: gruesome, inflammatory; dog photo irrelevant and prejudicial | Autopsy photos admissible (relevant to intent/cruelty); dog photo possibly erroneous but harmless given other evidence |
| Sexual/practice references and pornographic materials | Relevant to state of mind and relationship context | Defendant: irrelevant, propensity evidence, unfairly prejudicial | Admissible in redacted form; judge screened jurors and excluded graphic materials; not improperly character evidence |
| Firearms, training, and NRA membership | Relevant to access, choice of weapons, and familiarity supporting premeditation | Defendant: unfair focus on firearms and character inference | Firearms and credentials admissible as relevant to choice and premeditation; NRA membership should not have been admitted but error was harmless |
| Juror dual citizenship disclosed during deliberations | No issue — juror qualified and impartial | Defendant: juror not U.S. citizen; prejudiced right to jury of fellow citizens | Judge reasonably found juror was a U.S. citizen and impartial; no shown prejudice |
| Prosecutor’s closing on reasonableness of provocation | Prosecutor properly argued inferences from evidence | Defendant: prosecutor improperly asked jury to reject heat‑of‑passion as acceptable today | Remarks were permissible argument; reviewed in context of instructions and evidence |
| Jury instructions on sudden revelation of infidelity and burden | Defendant: requested instruction that sudden oral revelation may reduce murder to manslaughter and that prosecution must disprove mitigation beyond reasonable doubt | Judge refused defendant’s proposed wording but used Model Jury Instructions on Homicide | No error: Model instructions allowed jury to determine whether revelation was sudden and provoking; no burden‑shifting found |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Qualls, 425 Mass. 163 (state‑of‑mind hearsay exception)
- Commonwealth v. Borodine, 371 Mass. 1 (victim state of mind relevant to motive)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 437 Mass. 620 (excited utterance doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Waters, 399 Mass. 708 (photograph admissibility review)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 406 Mass. 397 (gruesome photos admissible if probative)
- Commonwealth v. Carey, 463 Mass. 378 (relevance of sexual/violent material to state of mind)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 463 Mass. 116 (weapons‑related evidence admissibility)
- Commonwealth v. Hodge (No. 2), 380 Mass. 858 (firearms proficiency relevant to deliberate shooting)
- Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (extreme atrocity/cruelty and intent)