Commonwealth v. Cassino (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-050-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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 SJC-11684 COMMONWEALTH vs. ADAM CASSINO. Suffolk. December 11, 2015. – April 8, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Search and Seizure, Clothing, Warrant, Probable cause. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Probable cause. Probable Cause. Deoxyribonucleic Acid. Mental Impairment. Jury and Jurors. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Instructions to jury, Voir dire, Jury and jurors. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 15, 2011. Pretrial motions to suppress evidence were heard by Charles J. Hely, J., and the case was tried before Garry V. Inge, J. Azi Safar for the defendant. Zachary Hillman, Assistant District Attorney (Ian Polumbaum, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. In August, 2011, a sixty-five year old woman was found dead in her apartment in the South Boston section of Boston. She was the victim of blunt force trauma caused by a baseball bat. The defendant, Adam Cassino, was indicted for the crime and a jury convicted him of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty. On appeal, the defendant claims (1) error in the denial of his three motions to suppress evidence stemming from a claimed illegal search of his clothing and shoes that were stored in a secured area while he was civilly committed pursuant to G. L. c. 123, § 35; (2) error in the presentation of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) results; (3) error in the failure to give a diminished capacity instruction; and (4) abuse of discretion in the judge’s juror bias determination. We affirm the order denying the defendant’s motions to suppress as well as the defendant’s convictions, and we discern no basis to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Motion to suppress. a. Background. After the discovery of the victim’s body on August 27, 2011, the police investigation soon focused on the defendant, the victim’s neighbor, as a possible suspect. The investigation led police to the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center (center) where the defendant had resided since August 24, 2011, after being civilly committed for drug treatment under G. L. c. 123, § 35. On August 29, 2011, two days after the discovery of the body, two Boston police detectives went to the center to interview […]