Commonwealth v. Rosa (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-089-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑11377 COMMONWEALTH vs. DANIEL ROSA. Hampden. January 10, 2014. ‑ May 20, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Botsford, Gants, & Duffly, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Evidence, Constructive possession, Telephone conversation, Relevancy and materiality, Joint venturer, Expert opinion. Imprisonment, Inmate telephone calls. Telephone. Joint Enterprise. Constitutional Law, Privacy. Privacy. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Verdict, Instructions to jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 29, 2011. The cases were tried before Peter A. Velis, J. Stewart T. Graham, Jr., for the defendant. Marcia B. Julian, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. BOTSFORD, J. A Superior Court jury found the defendant, Daniel Rosa, guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation and of possession of a firearm without a license. The defendant appeals, arguing that: (1) the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of bullet shell casings and live ammunition because the Commonwealth failed to prove that the defendant constructively possessed these items; (2) it was unduly prejudicial and violative of due process to admit the recording of a jailhouse telephone call made by the defendant in which he used street jargon and offensive language; (3) the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the monitoring of his telephone calls from jail and a jail officer’s sending to law enforcement authorities information derived from the calls; (4) the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on a joint venture theory; and (5) the trial judge erred in failing to provide a special verdict slip and special jury instruction requiring the jury to determine separately whether the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree as a principal or as an accomplice. We affirm the defendant’s convictions and decline to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Background. We recite the facts as the jury could have found them at trial, reserving certain details for later discussion. On January 26, 2011, at approximately noon, the victim, David Acevedo, was killed by a single gunshot wound to the back. The shooting occurred on Riverton Road in Springfield, near the home of Eric Caraballo, Sr., a mutual friend of the victim’s and the defendant’s. Earlier that morning, at 9:30 or 10 A.M., the defendant had gone to […]