Commonwealth v. Wood

Citation469 Mass. 266,14 N.E.3d 140
Decision Date07 August 2014
Docket NumberSJC–10977.
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. William WOOD.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Stephen Neyman, Westford, for the defendant.

Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth.

Present: IRELAND, C.J., CORDY, BOTSFORD, GANTS, & LENK, JJ.1

Opinion

CORDY, J.

In the early morning hours of February 13, 2004, Betsy Tripp was bound with telephone wire and murdered in her home, a condominium on Monsignor Way in the Dorchester section of Boston. Her throat was slit. The man who shared the condominium with her, Morris Thompson, was shot in the face,

coming close to death, and losing an eye. The perpetrators fled in a vehicle that Thompson had borrowed from a neighbor in the condominium complex and for which Thompson had the keys. The vehicle was abandoned in the parking lot of a Dorchester elementary school and set ablaze shortly after 2 A.M. that same morning.

Thompson survived his wounds and accused the defendant, William Wood, and Wood's friend, Quincy Butler, of committing the crimes in the course of a botched kidnapping and robbery attempt. Both were charged with murder and related crimes,2 and were tried together. There were four trials. Two ended in mistrials when the jury were unable to unanimously agree on a verdict. A third resulted in mistrial when the trial judge became ill during trial. At the fourth trial, which is the subject of this appeal, the defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of felony-murder and extreme atrocity or cruelty.3 Butler was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his appeal is pending in the Appeals Court.

As outlined further below, the principal witnesses for the Commonwealth were Thompson and Butler's former roommate and girl friend at the time of the murder, Laura DaSilva. DaSilva's testimony included her observations regarding the kidnapping at gunpoint of Thompson from her apartment by the defendant and Butler shortly before the murder; her observations of the defendant and Butler when they returned to her apartment at approximately 3 A.M. on February 13 and disposed of their clothing, including what appeared to be bloody gloves; and admissions made to her by Butler later that same morning regarding what he and the defendant had done at Tripp's condominium.

Both the defendant and Butler testified at trial, essentially denying their involvement in the crimes. In addition to their

testimony, the defense focused on the lack of forensic evidence tying either of them to the crime scene, what they claimed was an inadequate police investigation, and, relatedly, the possibility that Thompson or one of Thompson's drug-related associates had committed the crimes. The outcome of the case, to a large degree, turned on the jury's assessment whether the Commonwealth's principal witnesses or the codefendants were telling the truth.

On appeal, the defendant raises numerous claims of error. For the reasons stated below, we find no reversible error, and discern no basis to exercise our authority under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce or reverse the murder verdict. Consequently, we affirm the defendant's convictions. We also reinstate the defendant's two convictions of armed robbery, the underlying felonies in the felony-murder conviction, which the judge dismissed as duplicative. As we have concluded in similar circumstances, those convictions are not duplicative where the defendant is also convicted on another theory of murder in the first degree, here murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty. Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715, 734, 933 N.E.2d 50 (2010) (“if a jury return a special verdict specifying felony-murder as one of several theories under which they convicted the defendant, the underlying felony remains a distinct crime”). Commonwealth v. Raymond, 424 Mass. 382, 396–397, 676 N.E.2d 824 (1997) (same).

1. Background. We summarize the facts as the jury could have found them, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Sanna, 424 Mass. 92, 93, 674 N.E.2d 1067 (1997).

a. The murder. Thompson and Tripp began dating eight years prior to her death in 2004, and moved into a condominium in Dorchester together in 2001 or 2002. Thompson received disability checks every month and also worked odd jobs, often as a doorman at various Boston nightclubs or as a construction worker.

In February, 2004, Thompson's neighbor, Mitra Ghobadi, asked him to refurbish her apartment. He determined that he needed help to finish the job on time. DaSilva had lived with Thompson and Tripp for some time to escape an abusive former boy friend, and Thompson decided to enlist the help of her new boy friend, Butler. Thompson testified that he knew Butler as “Q.”4

DaSilva testified that on the evening of February 12, Thompson drove to her house in Boston with an “eight ball” of “crack” cocaine. He smoked the crack cocaine with DaSilva, Butler, and two other residents of the apartment in DaSilva's bedroom.5 , 6 Thompson told Butler that he would pay him $200 at the end of the following day for his assistance refurbishing Ghobadi's apartment. Butler responded that he had a friend who could help them get through the work more quickly. Thompson agreed, and said that Butler and his friend could split the $200.

At some point, the defendant entered the bedroom. Butler told DaSilva to follow him to the bathroom to talk with him. Once there, Butler said “that he was taking [Thompson] out and [Thompson] wasn't coming back to the house.”

Thompson became uneasy at the sight of the defendant, and something “just didn't feel right.” At that point, Butler said, We're gonna get paid tonight,” pulled out a silver revolver with a black handle,7 and put the gun to Thompson's head, while the defendant went through Thompson's pockets. The defendant took Thompson's automobile keys, money, and wallet, while DaSilva sat and watched from the bed, silently.

After taking Thompson's money, Butler and the defendant took Thompson to his automobile.8 The defendant drove while Thompson sat in the passenger seat and Butler sat behind him holding the gun to Thompson's head. The group arrived at Thompson and Tripp's condominium building sometime after midnight. After asking if the building had any security cameras, the defendant and Butler walked Thompson to the front door of the building and used his keys to open it. When they then entered the condominium unit, Tripp was sleeping in the bedroom.

The defendant and Butler ripped a telephone cord from the wall and tied Thompson up with his hands behind his back in the living room. They also woke Tripp and tied her in a similar

manner. They demanded money, and the defendant rummaged through the house while Butler sat holding Thompson at gunpoint. Eventually they demanded Tripp's automated teller machine (ATM) card and its personal identification number (PIN),9 which she gave to the defendant. The defendant left the house to use the ATM, while Butler stayed, “beating [Thompson] around on the floor.”

The defendant went to an ATM in Codman Square, which was located a few minutes from Thompson and Tripp's building. Between 1:49 and 1:50 A.M., he tried to withdraw money from the ATM five times, before successfully obtaining forty dollars. One minute later, he went to another ATM in the area and unsuccessfully tried to withdraw more money. He then returned to the condominium.

On his return, the defendant told Butler that he did not get any money. Tripp explained that her account was empty because a check she had received had not cleared yet. At that point, the defendant went into the kitchen, returned with a knife, grabbed Tripp by the back of the head, and cut her throat.

On hearing Tripp scream, Thompson jumped up and tried to push the defendant out of the way. As Thompson jumped toward the defendant, Butler fired one shot and hit Thompson in the side of the head.10 The bullet exited near his left eye. Thompson immediately lost consciousness and fell to the floor. When he awoke, Tripp was lying beside him, bleeding and barely alive. He broke out of his restraints and went into the hallway looking for help from his neighbors.

On answering a knock at his door, Richard Young, Thompson's neighbor, found Thompson bleeding profusely with his left eye hanging out of its socket. Thompson testified that he told Young, “A guy named ‘Q’ shot me in the head, and Will cut my girlfriend's throat.”11 Young told his wife to telephone 911, and he telephoned the fire department. Within minutes, the police and

emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived. Thompson repeatedly told the police and medical personnel on the scene that ‘Q’ shot him.” At some point, Young also heard Thompson say, “My girlfriend is in the apartment.”

The police found Tripp lying on the floor. She was covered with clothes, and she had a “deep,” significant slash across her neck. She was still alive and struggling to breathe as EMTs attended to her, but she was pronounced dead on arriving at Boston Medical Center.

After the shooting, the defendant and Butler took Thompson's automobile to the nearby Fifield Elementary School and set it on fire. At approximately 3 A.M., they returned to DaSilva's house. The two went into DaSilva's bedroom, took off their clothes, and placed them in a plastic bag. DaSilva noticed a pair of black leather gloves that appeared to be stained with blood, prompting her nervously to ask them if it was blood. Neither responded, and instead Butler counted some money and gave it to the defendant, who said that after the stress he had just been through he wanted to get high, to which Butler responded, “No, not right now, nobody's getting high right now.”

After the defendant left DaSilva's house, she went to take a shower. Butler followed her into the bathroom and told her that he (rather than the defendant) had slit Tripp's throat, saying, Sh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Steadman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 25, 2022
    ...time of the murder, his flight, and an attack against him by a hatchet-wielding Pratt a few weeks earlier. See Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266, 278, 14 N.E.3d 140 (2014).In any event, the defense had ample opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the police investigation, both of Royal ......
  • Commonwealth v. Edwards
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 7, 2022
    ...Washington W., supra. "Such relief should be reserved" only for "the most intolerable government conduct." Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266, 291, 14 N.E.3d 140 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Monteagudo, 427 Mass. 484, 485 n.1, 693 N.E.2d 1381 (1998). In determining whether to dismiss wi......
  • Commonwealth v. Winquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • June 14, 2016
    ...of third parties does not make the joint venture exception to the hearsay rule inapplicable. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266, 278–281, 14 N.E.3d 140 (2014) (statements made by joint venturer to girl friend on night of murder and several days later deemed admissible); Braley, ......
  • Commonwealth v. Scott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 26, 2014
    ...447, 466, 14 N.E.3d 294 (2014), citing Commonwealth v. Mandeville, 386 Mass. 393, 398, 436 N.E.2d 912 (1982). See Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266, 275–276 (2014) ; Commonwealth v. Bizanowicz, 459 Mass. 400, 418–419, 945 N.E.2d 356 (2011).Thus, it would have been permissible for the judg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT