Commonwealth v. Veiovis (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-121-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12017 COMMONWEALTH vs. CAIUS VEIOVIS. Berkshire. November 10, 2016. – July 19, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, & Lowy, JJ. Homicide. Evidence, Photograph, Relevancy and materiality, Inflammatory evidence, Prior misconduct, Identity, State of mind, Motive. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Argument by prosecutor, Instructions to jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on October 6, 2011. The cases were tried before C. Jeffrey Kinder, J. Dana Alan Curhan (Christie L. Nader also present) for the defendant. David F. Capeless, District Attorney for the Berkshire District, for the Commonwealth. GANTS, C.J. The defendant was found guilty by a Superior Court jury on three indictments charging murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation for the grisly killing of David Glasser, Edward Frampton, and Robert Chadwell.[1] The Commonwealth’s theory of the case was that the defendant participated in these killings with Adam Lee Hall and David Chalue to prevent Glasser from testifying against Hall in two criminal cases. They kidnapped Frampton, who was Glasser’s roommate, and Chadwell, who was Glasser’s neighbor, simply because Frampton and Chadwell had the misfortune of being in Glasser’s apartment when they entered to kidnap and later kill Glasser, and then killed Frampton and Chadwell to ensure their silence regarding the kidnapping and killing of Glasser. After the three victims were killed, the defendant, Hall, and Chalue dismembered their bodies and placed the body parts in plastic bags, and Hall arranged for the burial of the plastic bags.[2] The defendant presents four primary claims on appeal: (1) that the evidence of his knowing participation in these crimes was insufficient as a matter of law to support his convictions; (2) that the judge abused his discretion in admitting evidence of other acts the probative value of which was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice; (3) that the judge abused his discretion in admitting in evidence a statement by the defendant regarding the scars on his right arm; and (4) that the prosecutor presented facts in closing argument that were not supported by the evidence at trial. We affirm the convictions and conclude that the defendant is not entitled to relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background. Because the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, “we […]