Commonwealth v. Corliss (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-006-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11523 COMMONWEALTH vs. EDWARD CORLISS. Suffolk. October 29, 2014. – January 20, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Robbery. Practice, Criminal, View, Loss of evidence by prosecution, Capital case. Evidence, Firearm, Jury view, Prior misconduct, Relevancy and materiality, Exculpatory, Expert opinion, Experiment. Witness, Expert. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 25, 2010. The cases were tried before Diane M. Kottmyer, J. Stephen Neyman for the defendant. Mindy S. Klenoff, Assistant District Attorney (Patrick M. Haggan, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. BOTSFORD, J. A jury convicted the defendant, Edward Corliss, of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder, and of unlawful possession of a firearm, and robbery while armed and masked. The defendant appeals, claiming (1) the trial judge’s restrictions on the defendant’s attendance at a jury view were improper; (2) it was error to admit a witness’s testimony that he saw the defendant with a gun more than one year before the shooting in question occurred; (3) the “destruction” by police of money seized from the defendant’s residence without first examining the money for fingerprints or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) warrants dismissal of the charges against him; and (4) it was error to exclude the video and testimony of the defendant’s expert showing that surveillance footage of the shooting distorted the height of the perpetrator. Finally, the defendant asks us to reverse his convictions under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We affirm the convictions and decline to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Background. We recite the facts as the jury could have found them at trial, reserving some facts for later discussion. On the afternoon of December 26, 2009, Surendra Dangol, the victim, was working alone as a clerk at a convenience store located on Centre Street in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston. At approximately 2:45 P.M., a white motor vehicle stopped on Eliot Street opposite the store, at the intersection of Eliot and Centre Streets. A person wearing a hat and a bulky coat, and carrying a backpack, approached the vehicle and appeared to speak briefly with the driver, who had lowered the window. The vehicle then backed up on Eliot Street, away from the intersection with Centre Street […]