Commonwealth v. Mulgrave (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-119-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11569 COMMONWEALTH vs. CRAIG MULGRAVE. Essex. March 6, 2015. – July 13, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Botsford, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Evidence, Spontaneous utterance, Expert opinion, Impeachment of credibility, Cumulative evidence, Relevancy and materiality. Witness, Expert, Impeachment. Mental Impairment. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Instructions to jury. Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court Department on April 2, 2010. The case was tried before David A. Lowy, J. Robert S. Sinsheimer (Lisa Parlagreco with him) for the defendant. David F. O’Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. HINES, J. In March, 2012, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant, Craig Mulgrave, of murder in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty in the stabbing death of his wife, Christina Mulgrave.[1] On appeal the defendant asserts that the judge erred in certain evidentiary rulings that violated his right to due process under the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights: (1) admitting in evidence as an excited utterance a cellular telephone text message sent by the victim; (2) granting the Commonwealth leave to present general evidence that the defendant made statements, which previously were suppressed, to impeach proffered evidence that he was noncommunicative; and (3) excluding the proffered testimony of a defense expert witness. The defendant also argues error in the jury instructions on diminished capacity. We discern no error in the judge’s evidentiary rulings or instructions to the jury. We decline to exercise our authority pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and affirm the defendant’s convictions. 1. Background. a. The Commonwealth’s case. The jury could have found the following facts. The defendant and the victim were married in Jamaica in July, 2008. The two had met while the victim was on vacation in Jamaica, where the defendant had lived. In October, 2009, the defendant obtained a visa and moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, to join the victim. The couple moved to Haverhill one or two months later, where they would be closer to the victim’s two children and her sister. The victim’s sister and son testified that the defendant was depressed and frustrated that he was unable to find employment. In February, 2010, the victim told her sister that there were problems in the marriage and that she had asked the defendant to […]