Commonwealth v. Cameron (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-177-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11835 COMMONWEALTH vs. RONJON CAMERON. Berkshire. September 10, 2015. – October 28, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Hines, JJ. Rape. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Practice, Criminal, New trial. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on October 29, 1999. The cases were tried before Thomas J. Curley, Jr.; a motion for a new trial, filed on October 8, 2009, was considered by John A. Agostini, J., and a motion for reconsideration, filed on January 15, 2013, was also considered by him. After review by the Appeals Court, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 1113 (2014), the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Laura Chrismer Edmonds for the defendant. Joseph A. Pieropan, Assistant District Attorney (Paul J. Caccaviello, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. Stephanie Roberts Hartung, for New England Innocence Project, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. CORDY, J. In April, 2003, a jury found the defendant, Ronjon Cameron, guilty on two indictments charging rape, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b). As part of its case against the defendant, the Commonwealth offered in evidence a laboratory report regarding the presence of seminal residue on the complainant’s underwear. The Commonwealth also offered testimony to suggest that there had been a transfer of semen from the defendant onto the complainant’s underwear during the rape. Forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing performed before trial indicated the presence of two male sources of the seminal residue on the underwear. Testing as to the primary source excluded the defendant. An expert testified on behalf of the Commonwealth and described the secondary source as both “inconclusive” and as neither including nor excluding the defendant. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of from twelve to sixteen years in State prison. In October, 2009, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied. In January, 2013, he filed a motion to amend and reconsider his motion for a new trial, based primarily on DNA testing performed by an independent laboratory, Bode Technology (Bode). Bode’s analysis, using short tandem repeat (STR) testing on sixteen loci,[1] revealed that the secondary source, which the Commonwealth’s expert had, at trial, attributed to a male donor, was in fact female DNA to which the defendant was excluded as a possible […]