Commonwealth v. Foxworth (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-182-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-10993 COMMONWEALTH vs. SCOTT FOXWORTH. Middlesex. September 11, 2015. – November 12, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, & Duffly, JJ. Homicide. Conspiracy. Constitutional Law, Conduct of government agents. Evidence, Conversation between husband and wife, Threat, Prior conviction, Relevancy and materiality, Immunized witness. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Conduct of government agents, Argument by prosecutor, Instructions to jury, Agreement between prosecutor and witness. Witness, Immunity. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on June 26, 2006. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Leila R. Kern, J., and the cases were tried before her. Kenneth I. Seiger for the defendant. Bethany Stevens, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. SPINA, J. The defendant was convicted of deliberately premeditated murder and conspiracy to commit murder.[1] On appeal he challenges (1) the denial of his motion to suppress statements he made to a jailhouse informant whom he alleged to be an agent of the Commonwealth; (2) the admission in evidence, allegedly in violation of the spousal disqualification rule, of statements his alleged coconspirator made to the coconspirator’s spouse; (3) the admission in evidence of his prior incarceration; (4) a statement by the prosecutor in closing argument that the defendant contends was improper comment on his right not to testify; and (5) the adequacy of the judge’s instruction concerning the jury’s consideration of the testimony of an immunized witness. The defendant also urges us to grant him a new trial pursuant to our powers under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We affirm the convictions and decline to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial. 1. Background. The jury could have found the following facts. We reserve other details for discussion of the issues. On January 13, 2006, at approximately 7:45 A.M., the defendant shot the victim in the head shortly after the victim arrived at the parking garage at his place of employment in Newton, killing him. This was a contract killing in which the defendant was hired by James Brescia to kill the victim, who had been dating Brescia’s wife, Stacey Rock.[2] The victim had dated Rock when they were in high school and in college, before she married Brescia. Their relationship ended in 1996. Rock and Brescia were married […]