Commonwealth v. Corliss
| Decision Date | 20 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | SJC–11523. |
| Citation | 23 N.E.3d 92,470 Mass. 443 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Edward CORLISS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stephen Neyman, Westford, for the defendant.
Mindy S. Klenoff, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick M. Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.
Present: GANTS, C.J., CORDY, BOTSFORD, LENK, & HINES, JJ.
A jury convicted the defendant, Edward Corliss, of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, and of unlawful possession of a firearm, and robbery while armed and masked. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) the trial judge's restrictions on the defendant's attendance at a jury view were improper; (2) it was error to admit a witness's testimony that he saw the defendant with a gun more than one year before the shooting in question occurred; (3) the “destruction” by police of money seized from the defendant's residence without first examining the money for fingerprints or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) warrants dismissal of the charges against him; and (4) it was error to exclude the video and testimony of the defendant's expert showing that surveillance footage of the shooting distorted the height of the perpetrator. Finally, the defendant asks us to reverse his convictions under G.L. c. 278, § 33E. We affirm the convictions and decline to grant relief under G.L. c. 278, § 33E.
Background. We recite the facts as the jury could have found them at trial, reserving some facts for later discussion. On the afternoon of December 26, 2009, Surendra Dangol, the victim, was working alone as a clerk at a convenience store located on Centre Street in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston. At approximately 2:45 p.m. , a white motor vehicle stopped on Eliot Street opposite the store, at the intersection of Eliot and Centre Streets. A person wearing a hat and a bulky coat, and carrying a backpack, approached the vehicle and appeared to speak briefly with the driver, who had lowered the window. The vehicle then backed up on Eliot Street, away from the intersection with Centre Street and out of view of the store's surveillance cameras.
Minutes later, at approximately 2:56 p.m. , a person who appeared to be the same individual wearing a bulky coat entered the store, put the backpack on the counter by the register and pointed a gun at the victim, who stood behind the counter. The victim put both hands in the air. The gunman handed his backpack to the victim, who opened the cash register and, still at gun point, transferred the money from the register into the backpack. Once the victim finished doing so, the gunman continued to point the gun at the victim, who stretched both hands out to either side. The gunman then shot the victim, and the victim fell to the ground.
The gunman took his backpack from the counter and left the store, running down Eliot Street in the same direction in which the white vehicle had driven in reverse before the robbery. Seconds later, the vehicle drove down Eliot Street toward Centre Street and the store, turned right onto Centre Street, and drove away. The store was missing $746 following the robbery.
A customer entered the store shortly after the shooting and heard a gasping noise emanating from behind the counter. The customer found the victim lying motionless and telephoned 911. Boston police officers and paramedics arrived at the scene. The victim was transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead shortly after his arrival. An autopsy revealed that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the victim's chest.
Police secured the scene and reviewed video recorded by the store's surveillance cameras. The police made efforts to enhance the video of the white vehicle shown on Eliot Street immediately before and after the robbery and shooting, but were unable to determine the license plate or any details about the appearance of the driver.
The police showed photographs of the white vehicle to an automobile sales manager and a police officer with experience in automobile accident investigations, both of whom identified it as a Plymouth Acclaim made between 1989 and 1995. Both also noted that the vehicle in the surveillance video had hubcaps that were “after-market,” i.e., not included with the vehicle when it was originally manufactured, and the officer noted that the brake light in the vehicle's rear window appeared not to be functioning properly.
The police obtained from the registry of motor vehicles a list of white Plymouth Acclaims registered in Massachusetts that were made between 1989 and 1995. One such vehicle was registered to Jacqueline L. Silvia, the defendant's wife, who lived with the defendant on Hyde Park Avenue in the Roslindale section of Boston. The police conducted surveillance of the white Acclaim in the weeks following the shooting and, in early January of 2010, observed Silvia driving it with the defendant in the passenger seat.
On January 15, 2010, police sought and obtained a search warrant for Silvia's Acclaim. Upon examining the vehicle at the police station, the police observed that, similar to the white vehicle in the surveillance video, the Acclaim had after-market hubcaps,
and the brake light in the rear window was close to burning out and, thus, producing less light than intended.
The defendant also admitted to three different people that he had committed a robbery and had shot someone at the store. In particular, on the night of the incident, while the defendant was visiting his brother, he pulled dollar bills of various denominations out of his pocket and told his brother that he had “pulled a score” during which he killed a man in the store who had lied to him by saying that there was no money in the register; he also stated that he had no remorse about the incident. Later, while being held in custody before trial, the defendant told a fellow inmate that he entered a store intending to rob it; that he shot a man inside the store (to whom the defendant referred as a “sand nigger”); that the vehicle used in the offense was his wife's Plymouth; and that he disposed of the gun used in the shooting along Revere Beach. The defendant told another inmate that he robbed the store while wearing a wig and a puffy outfit, and shot the store clerk; he killed the clerk, he explained, to ensure that there would be no witnesses to the robbery. The defendant added that he had disposed of the gun used in the shooting in the water. In addition, fearing Silvia's possible testimony against him in court, the defendant asked the inmate to kill Silvia upon the inmate's release from prison, and gave him details of Silvia's whereabouts and routines to facilitate her killing.1
Based on information they had received during the course of their investigation, the police searched a rocky portion of Revere Beach several times. During their third search police found a handgun in the sand. Ballistics testing confirmed that the bullet removed from the victim's body was fired from this gun. The Commonwealth also presented evidence that the defendant had told his brother that he often carried a gun for protection that he referred to as his “buddy.” Finally, there was evidence that, prior to the robbery of the store, the defendant had told his brother in December of 2009 that he was experiencing financial trouble due to a decrease in his Social Security benefits.2
Discussion. 1. Jury view. The defendant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his request to attend a view that would be
separate from, but identical to, the view taken by the jury. Acknowledging that the judge did allow him to attend the jury view, the defendant further claims that the judge erred in confining him to a vehicle during the view. Finally, the defendant relies on Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388, 403 n. 9, 917 N.E.2d 191 (2009), S.C., 467 Mass. 96, 4 N.E.3d 241 (2014), to argue that his presence was required throughout the jury's view because, he claims, the view involved an experiment or demonstration, and in any event, the view could have been avoided. There was no error.
The background facts are the following. The Commonwealth's pretrial motion for a view by the jury was allowed without objection. Prior to the view, the defendant wavered as to whether he wished to be present for the jury's view or to attend a separate view, but ultimately indicated a preference for the latter. The judge stated that under existing case law, the defendant had no constitutional right to be present during the view. Furthermore, the judge noted that there was some information available indicating that the defendant had plotted to escape from custody and had spoken about killing prison guards, and that this evidence dictated the need for security personnel to accompany the defendant on any separate view. The judge was skeptical about the feasibility of conducting a separate view for the defendant, given the shortage of security personnel available, but indicated that she would look into whether a private view for the defendant was practicable. The judge thereafter did not mention the issue of a separate view, but ultimately ruled, based on security concerns, that the defendant could not be present with the jury during their view, but that security personnel would transport the defendant in a separate vehicle and the vehicle would be positioned to allow the defendant to observe each location on the jury view to the extent possible. The judge prohibited the defendant from leaving the vehicle during the view, but provided him with a “notice of view details,” drafted by the Commonwealth, which described “precisely what it is that the Commonwealth [pointed] out to the jurors.”
The jury went on the planned view, during which counsel for the Commonwealth and for the defendant showed jurors the area surrounding the store, the interior of the store, the exterior of the defendant's residence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Depina
...possession of a gun may be admissible to show that he or she had the means to commit the offense. See Commonwealth v. Corliss , 470 Mass. 443, 450, 23 N.E.3d 92 (2015). The Commonwealth generally may not introduce evidence of a gun, however, where the gun "definitively could not have been u......
-
Commonwealth v. Sullivan
...charge, properly limited the jury's consideration of why the defendant's DNA was present in the database. See Commonwealth v. Corliss, 470 Mass. 443, 452, 23 N.E.3d 92 (2015). ii. Confrontation clause. The defendant also contends that testimony about the CODIS database match constituted a v......
-
Commonwealth v. Pierre
...478 Mass. at 533, 87 N.E.3d 77, quoting Commonwealth v. McGee, 467 Mass. 141, 156, 4 N.E.3d 256 (2014). See Commonwealth v. Corliss, 470 Mass. 443, 449-450, 23 N.E.3d 92 (2015) (trial judge properly allowed introduction of evidence of defendant's access to firearm that could have been used ......
-
Commonwealth v. Barbosa
...jury to use their observations from the view to evaluate the evidence and aid in reaching their verdict. See Commonwealth v. Corliss , 470 Mass. 443, 448, 23 N.E.3d 92 (2015), quoting Commonwealth v. Gomes , 459 Mass. 194, 199, 944 N.E.2d 1007 (2011) ("[a]lthough what is seen on the view ma......