Commonwealth v. Butler (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-160-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 11-P-729 Appeals Court COMMONWEALTH vs. QUINCY BUTLER. No. 11-P-729. Suffolk. November 9, 2015. – November 4, 2016. Present: Cypher, Trainor, & Rubin, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Jury. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Challenge to jurors, Jury and jurors, Capital case, Argument by prosecutor, Witness, Conduct of prosecutor. Evidence, Argument by prosecutor, Cross-examination, Credibility of witness. Witness, Cross-examination, Credibility. Perjury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on May 4, 2004. The cases were tried before Patrick F. Brady, J. John M. Thompson for the defendant. Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick M. Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. CYPHER, J. The defendant, Quincy Butler, appeals from his convictions of murder in the second degree (G. L. c. 265, § 1), and eight related offenses.[1] The defendant was tried with a codefendant, William Wood, on a theory of joint venture for crimes committed in the course of a botched kidnapping and robbery attempt.[2] Wood was convicted of murder in the first degree and various other charges.[3] He appealed his convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court which found no reversible error and found no reason to reduce or reverse the conviction of murder in the first degree pursuant to its authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.[4] See Commonwealth v. Wood, 469 Mass. 266 (2014). On appeal, the defendant argues that he was deprived of equal protection and due process because the prosecutor engaged in racial and gender discrimination during jury empanelment. Specifically, he claims that the prosecutor attempted to select jurors who resembled the victim, a white female, and to avoid jurors who resembled the defendants, African American men. The defendant also argues several other issues, some of which were raised by Wood and reviewed and rejected by the Supreme Judicial Court in Wood, supra.[5] We affirm. The Supreme Judicial Court thoroughly explicated the facts of the case in Wood, supra. We will address relevant facts where necessary. Discussion. 1. Jury empanelment. “Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights proscribes the use of peremptory challenges ‘to exclude prospective jurors solely by virtue of their membership in, or affiliation with, particular, defined groupings in the community.’” Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 Mass. 395, 405 (2008), quoting from Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. […]