Commonwealth v. Veiovis
477 Mass. 472
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Defendant tried and convicted of three counts of first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation) for the kidnapping, killing, dismemberment and burial of David Glasser, Edward Frampton, and Robert Chadwell; co‑defendants Adam Lee Hall and David Chalue participated and were separately convicted.
- Commonwealth’s theory: killings were to prevent Glasser from testifying against Hall; two other victims were killed as witnesses; bodies were dismembered, bagged, and buried; Hall admitted details to a third party and led police to remains.
- Circumstantial evidence tying defendant to the joint venture: repeated presence with Hall and Chalue during the relevant time frame, involvement in cleaning/disassembling guns the night before, use/possession of the Jeep in which Hall rode, wet clothing/money and cigar wrappers linking movements after the murders, and Hall’s statements identifying a third participant who “enjoyed torturing and cutting them up.”
- Police found in defendant’s apartment anatomical drawings/collage of human dissections and a collection of cutting tools (machete, cleaver, hatchets, knives) and also a spiked baseball bat; some tools were consistent with those that could produce the dismemberment injuries though they tested negative for blood two weeks later.
- At trial the judge admitted photos of the anatomical drawings and most cutting tools (but later the court-held the baseball bat photo admission was erroneous but harmless); a statement by the defendant about scars on his arm was admitted; no limiting instruction on other‑act evidence was given; defendant raised insufficiency and evidentiary objections on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Circumstantial proof placed defendant with Hall/Chalue before/after killings, showed motive (Hells Angels aspiration), identity as third killer, and inferences from Hall’s admissions support guilt | No direct eyewitness or forensic link to defendant; evidence only circumstantial and insufficient as matter of law | Affirmed: viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of other‑act items (anatomical drawings, weapons, bat) | Drawings probative of identity, state of mind, and explanation for dismemberment; cutting tools show means; bat later found not probative | Drawings and photos unfairly prejudicial and invite propensity inference; bat irrelevant | Affirmed in part: drawings and cutting‑tool photos admissible for noncharacter purposes; spiked bat photo erroneously admitted but error harmless |
| Admission of defendant’s statement about scars | Statement probative to identify defendant as the person who would “enjoy torturing and cutting” victims (ties to Hall’s description) | Statement is character evidence showing propensity and should have been excluded | Affirmed: judge did not abuse discretion because statement was probative of identity, outweighing prejudice |
| Prosecutor argument; jury reasonable‑doubt instruction; §33E review | Prosecutor’s inferences from circumstantial record fair; Webster moral‑certainty phrase adequate in context; overall verdicts just | Prosecutor argued facts not in evidence; reasonable‑doubt instruction omitted clarifying Webster language; cumulative errors require relief | Affirmed: prosecutor’s inferences were permissible; omission in Webster language did not create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice; convictions affirmed and §33E relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Penn, 472 Mass. 610 (reciting standards for reviewing sufficiency) (procedural context for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. St. Hilaire, 470 Mass. 338 (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (beyond a reasonable doubt standard restatement)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (circumstantial evidence may support first‑degree murder)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (limits on admitting other‑act evidence and propensity concerns)
- Commonwealth v. Drew, 397 Mass. 65 (other‑act evidence admissible to explain otherwise inexplicable violence)
- Commonwealth v. Guy, 454 Mass. 440 (admission of defendant’s macabre interest as relevant to motive/state of mind; balancing prejudice)
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 463 Mass. 116 (weapons in home admissible to show means even without proof they were used)
- Commonwealth v. Russell, 470 Mass. 464 (reasonable‑doubt instruction; Webster formulation and modern uniform instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Pinckney, 419 Mass. 341 (moral‑certainty language and limits on reasonable‑doubt phrasing)