COMMONWEALTH v. MATTEI, FEBRUARY 1, 2010, SJC
Sufficiency of evidence, Dangerous weapon
The defendant argued on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of home invasion and assault with a dangerous weapon because the duct tape that was used in the attack was not a dangerous weapon. The SJC disagreed. Here the defendant used the duct tape to cover and close the victim’s mouth; there was also evidence that the victim had trouble breathing during the assault. Finding an item to be a dangerous weapon does not require the victim’s death or serious bodily harm - only the apparent ability to injure is necessary.
Admissibility of DNA, Expert testimony
The defendant argued that it was error to admit expert testimony that he could not be excluded as a potential source of DNA found at the crime scene without accompanying testimony explaining the statistical relevance of those non-exclusion results. The SJC agreed. The Court noted that the admissibility of match evidence requires testimony explaining to the jury the likelihood of that match occurring. The same rule should apply in non-exclusion results as well. The DNA evidence is of little value to the jury without giving some context or significance to the results.
