Commonwealth v. Ramon Perez (September 23rd, 2011)
Docket SJC-10208
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Facts: The defendant had previously worked with the victim and engaged in drug transactions. After some phone conversations, he met the victim behind a supermarket distribution warehouse, and shot him. He proceeded to get rid of the clothes and wash his car, and he covered the body, which he had dumped in a ditch by the warehouse. The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and intimidation of a witness.
Issue #1: Did the judge’s questioning of potential jurors about their beliefs on scientific evidence in trials, violate the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial?
No. The judge was attempting to search for potential juror bias regarding the so-called “CSI effect,” which says that jurors that watch these forensic science television programs will hold prosecutors to an unreasonably high standard or proof and will go against the Commonwealth’s case if the prosecution doesn’t provide adequate forensic evidence. The court rules that the judge did not abuse his discretion. The judge was making sure that the jurors did not have any bias and could decide the case based on the evidence; the questioning did not suggest that a lack of scientific evidence could not be considered whether there was any doubt towards the guilt of the defendant.
Issue #2: Did the judge err when he didn’t instruct the jury to consider the lack of police investigation and physical evidence when determining whether there was a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt?
No. A judge can but is not required to bring up the lack of physical evidence or adequacy of the police investigation in front of the jury; it’s up to the defense to prove those points.
Issue #3: Did the judge err by allowing Chisholm, the defendant’s girlfriend, to express her opinion as to whether or not the defendant was guilty?
No. The judge should not have allowed the testimony, even though the defense did not specifically object to her statement that she thought he had committed the murder after she had heard the body was found. However, when addressing whether this created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, the court says that the error was insubstantial when compared to the strong circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Issue #4: Did the judge err by allowing the admission of prior bad act evidence?
No. The fact that there were multiple witnesses that testified that they had seen the defendant carry a weapon that could have been responsible for the murder was relevant evidence in the case. On the other hand, the testimony of the defendant’s fight with his estranged wife should not have been admitted because it had the sole purpose of demonstrating bad character, propensity for anger, propensity to commit a crime, and was not connected to the case. While this evidence should not have been allowed, the court did not believe that it unduly prejudiced the defendant in light of the strong circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and there was other evidence admitted at trial that showed the poor relationship between the defendant and his estranged wife and son.
Issue #5: Did the judge err in allowing evidence of the phone conversation between the defendant and his estranged wife since the two were still married?
No. The rule generally is that a husband or wife cannot be made to testify against each other. One exception is that a third party can satisfy if they observed the conversation, which did happen in this case. Therefore the telephone conversation was not private, and Dube was not disqualified from testifying about the conversation.
Issue #6: Was the journal that the wife held that documented their meetings correctly admitted into evidence?
Yes. The journal was authentic, and since the journal had almost daily entries and provided details about the interactions between the wife and the defendant, provided sufficient foundation that the wife would have written about all face-to-face meeting with the defendant. However, there was no entry for the time they met the night of the murder, but the judge correctly found that this was not an inconsistent statement. The admission of the omitted journal entry was unlikely to affect the jury, and there was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
Issue #7: Did the judge err in not allowing the motion for a required finding of not guilty on the charges of witness intimidation?
No. The defendant wrote a letter from prison to his girlfriend trying to convince her not ot testify against him. It also told her to recant her grand jury testimony, and if she did she would not have to worry about what happened after the trial. Chisholm also testified that the defendant had abused her at times, had instructed her not to speak to police, and had kept her under surveillance. This was enough evidence to convince a jury that there was witness intimidation.
Conclusion: Judgments affirmed.
Prepared by KP
