Commonwealth v. Torres
469 Mass. 398
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant Torres lived with the victim in her third-floor Dorchester apartment; victim was found dead on March 9, 2008 with ligature strangulation and a sharp incision severing major neck vessels and dividing the trachea; strangulation preceded the incision.
- Children reported seeing an altercation and the defendant sitting on the kitchen table and locking children in a bedroom; neighbor found the victim in a bloody, ransacked kitchen with an electrical cord around her neck.
- Defendant left the apartment, went to his father's residence, left a duffle bag and backpack there, and later gave a voluntary, recorded statement denying the killing; a transit fare card showed defendant used an MBTA bus at 11:33 P.M. March 8; neighbor had visited victim ~9:30 P.M.
- Forensic evidence: victim’s DNA on defendant’s sandals, duffle bag, knife handle/blade, and shirt; a bloody footwear impression at the scene was consistent in size/pattern with defendant’s left sandal but was indeterminate; duffle bag contained a 12:02 A.M. receipt and other items.
- Defense theory: defendant left after an argument and did not have time/ability to kill victim; asserted ineffective-assistance claims post-conviction challenging trial counsel’s choices (timeline/alibi strategies, not pursuing left-handed-expert or Daubert hearing, failure to object to certain testimony, and manslaughter strategy).
- Procedural posture: convicted of first-degree murder; motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance denied without evidentiary hearing; appeal consolidated with direct appeal and reviewed under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Torres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel failed to exploit timeline/alibi and pursue third-party culprit defense | Timeline evidence, DNA, and other corroboration tied Torres to the scene; counsels’ choices reasonable | Counsel should have emphasized time gap between 9:30 P.M. neighbor visit and 11:33 P.M. CharlieCard and sought alibi/third-party theory | Trial strategy was reasonable; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage; no hearing required |
| Failure to object to Serrano’s testimony about lying to defendant | Testimony was fleeting and not relied on in closing; prosecutor did not emphasize it | Statement was impermissible comment on defendant’s credibility that required objection | Error would be harmless; counsel not ineffective |
| Failure to retain/consult left-handed knife-wound expert | Commonwealth would contest causation and reliance on the autopsy; other evidence tied defendant to wound | Wound pattern indicated left-handed assailant; Torres is right-handed, so expert could exonerate him | Record did not raise substantial issue; physical ability statements and other facts undercut claim; no hearing required; counsel not ineffective |
| Failure to seek Daubert/Lanigan hearing or strike footwear-expert testimony | Expert explained factors and limits; testimony assisted jury and was non-definitive | Only 2 of 4 comparison factors matched; opinion speculative and should be excluded without a reliability hearing | Expert admissible; judge did not abuse discretion; counsel not ineffective |
| Counsel’s manslaughter argument/instruction inconsistent with not-guilty theory | Manslaughter option was minor, cautious hedge and model instruction used | Arguing manslaughter contradicted primary defense and was ineffective | Strategy was not manifestly unreasonable; instruction proper; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (discusses standard for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (framework for admissibility of scientific/expert evidence)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (federal gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. DeVincent, 421 Mass. 64 (when an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial is required)
- Commonwealth v. Triplett, 398 Mass. 561 (prohibits impermissible comments on defendant’s credibility)
- Commonwealth v. Azar, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 290 (expert opinions phrased as "consistent with" may be admissible)