Commonwealth v. Upton, 139 N.E.3d 1159

Background

In Sept. 2009 Aris Manoloules was shot four times; Robert L. Upton was later indicted and convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation and felony‑murder), aggravated assault and armed assault in a dwelling.
The Commonwealth's key witness was Christopher Manoloules, the victim’s nephew, who testified at Upton’s 2013 trial that Upton purchased a Ruger, went to the victim’s house, and shot him; ballistics tied the Ruger to the victim’s bullets.
Christopher initially denied any deal at the time of Upton’s trial, but in 2013 (after Upton’s trial) he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced; in 2016, during a civil wrongful‑death trial, Christopher testified claiming an undisclosed plea arrangement that he said had influenced earlier testimony.
Upton filed a second motion for a new trial asserting that Christopher’s plea and later civil testimony disclosed a Brady violation (undisclosed deal) and constituted newly discovered impeachment evidence; the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
The judge relied on (1) on‑the‑record, repeated prosecutor denials of any secret deal, (2) the defense’s failure to produce affidavits from prosecutors or Christopher’s counsel, (3) credibility problems with Christopher’s recantation/self‑serving civil testimony, and (4) the strong independent evidence (ballistics, defendant’s purchase and concealment of the gun, defendant’s statements/texts).
The SJC affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing or a new trial, and no basis to disturb the murder verdict under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Upton's Argument	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Upton’s claim of an undisclosed plea agreement/Brady violation	Prosecutor repeatedly denied any undisclosed promise on the record; defense submissions lacked affidavits from prosecutors or witness counsel and did not credibly cast doubt	Christopher’s later plea and civil testimony show a secret deal withheld in violation of Brady and require a hearing	Denied — judge did not abuse discretion; defense failed to raise a substantial issue and omitted expected affidavits; prosecutor’s on‑the‑record denials credible
Whether Christopher’s post‑trial guilty plea and civil testimony constitute newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial	Even if plea exists, Christopher’s plea and testimony are cumulative or unreliable impeachment; independent evidence of guilt is strong	The plea and civil recantation materially undermine Christopher’s credibility and would have affected the jury	Denied — newly discovered evidence would not have cast real doubt on conviction given strong independent evidence and trial impeachment of Christopher
Whether a recantation/contradictory civil‑trial statement by the key witness is trustworthy enough to justify relief	Christopher’s civil testimony was self‑serving, motivated to protect family estate shares, and contradicted prior testimony; therefore not credible	The civil testimony reveals the truth about a secret deal and shows prior testimony was influenced by prosecutorial inducement	Court credited trial judge’s credibility findings; the civil testimony was unreliable and did not justify a new trial
Whether an unobjected‑to on‑the‑stand remark (“I’ve done this before”) required reversal under G. L. c. 278, § 33E	The remark was vague, not emphasized by prosecutor, and not likely to cause substantial miscarriage of justice	The comment introduced impermissible prior bad‑act implication that could unfairly prejudice jury	No reversal under § 33E — remark was non‑specific and did not create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
Commonwealth v. Goodreau, 442 Mass. 341 (2004) (standard for when a motion judge may deny a new‑trial evidentiary hearing)
Commonwealth v. Hill, 432 Mass. 704 (2000) (undisclosed plea reducing a witness’s sentence substantially can warrant a new trial)
Commonwealth v. Grace, 397 Mass. 303 (1986) (standard for appellate review when consolidating direct appeal with new‑trial motion)
Commonwealth v. Drayton, 479 Mass. 479 (2018) (newly discovered impeachment evidence ordinarily does not warrant a new trial unless it seriously undermines a key witness)
Commonwealth v. Waters, 410 Mass. 224 (1991) (recantation evidence requires close credibility scrutiny in new‑trial context)