Case Title: Commonwealth v. Fritz

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-07763

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2015-07-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-07763 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  SHAWN T. FRITZ. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     May 4, 2015. - July 29, 2015. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, & Hines, 
JJ. 
 
 
Homicide.  Firearms.  Constitutional Law, Public trial, Jury, 
Conduct of government agents, Confrontation of witnesses.  
Jury and Jurors.  Evidence, Relevancy and materiality, 
Motive, Admission by silence, Expert opinion, Consciousness 
of guilt, Cross-examination, Credibility of witness.  
Witness, Expert, Credibility.  Practice, Criminal, Capital 
case, New trial, Severance, Public trial, Jury and jurors, 
Empanelment of jury, Challenge to jurors, Conduct of 
government agents, Admissions and confessions, 
Confrontation of witnesses, Argument by prosecutor, 
Instructions to jury.  Escape. 
 
 
 
 
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on December 19, 1994. 
 
 
The cases were tried before Vieri Volterra, J.; a motion 
for a new trial, filed on November 19, 2009, was considered by 
Mitchell H. Kaplan, J.; and a motion for a new trial, filed on 
December 9, 2011, was heard by Linda E. Giles, J. 
 
 
 
Rosemary Curran Scapicchio for the defendant. 
 
Paul B. Linn, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
2 
 
 
 
HINES, J.  On October 24, 1996, a jury convicted the 
defendant, Shawn T. Fritz, of murder in the first degree of 
Albert Tyler Titcomb, III, on the theories of deliberate 
premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and of unlawful 
possession of a firearm.1  The defendant's appeal from his 
convictions was consolidated with his appeals from the denial of 
his first two motions for a new trial.2  He raises a plethora of 
appellate issues and also asks that we exercise our power under 
G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant him a new trial or to reduce the 
verdict.3  We affirm his convictions and the orders denying his 
motions for a new trial, and discern no basis to reduce the 
verdict or to order a new trial. 
                     
 
1 The defendant was tried together with Timothy McLaughlin 
and Frederick Stearns.  The trial judge granted McLaughlin's and 
Stearns's motions for a required finding of not guilty after the 
close of the Commonwealth's case. 
 
 
2 The defendant is represented on appeal by counsel who had 
represented him in connection with his new trial motions.  The 
trial judge did not decide those motions. 
 
 
3 The defendant submitted two appellate briefs with an 
unwieldy total of 142 pages, in violation of Mass. R. A. P. 16 
(h), as amended, 438 Mass. 1601 (2003); one brief also is in 
apparent violation of Mass. R. A. P. 20 (a), as amended, 456 
Mass. 1601 (2010).  Together, the briefs assert approximately 
twenty-four different principal claims of error, some of which 
are barely comprehensible and lack compliance with our rule 
governing appropriate appellate argument.  Mass. R. A. P. 16 (a) 
(4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).  See Kellogg v. Board of 
Registration in Med., 461 Mass. 1001, 1003 (2011). 
3 
 
 
Background.  We summarize the facts the jury could have 
found.  The victim was shot in the head five times at close 
range in the hallway of 17 Carney Court, an apartment building 
in the Charlestown section of Boston, at approximately 4 P.M. on 
November 22, 1994.  He died as a result of his wounds.  The 
murder weapon was never recovered.  Five discharged .32 caliber 
automatic cartridge casings and two spent .32 caliber bullets 
were recovered in the vicinity of the victim's body.  Three 
spent bullets and one fragment of a spent bullet were recovered 
from the victim's body during his autopsy.  A firearms 
identification expert testified regarding his opinion that, 
based on his microscopic examination, all of the discharged 
cartridge casings and spent bullets had been fired from the same 
weapon. 
 
The victim had a lengthy history of drug addiction.  He 
owed the defendant fifty dollars.  When unable to pay, the 
victim fabricated a story that he had been arrested and had used 
the fifty dollars to post bail.  This story was reported to the 
defendant by the victim's cousin and again by the victim on the 
morning of the shooting, but the defendant did not believe it. 
 
The victim spent much of the day on November 22 with his 
friend, William Barends, in Charlestown.  The two smoked 
marijuana with other acquaintances and consumed other drugs.  
The medical examiner who conducted the victim's autopsy 
4 
 
testified that at the time of the victim's death, he had a large 
amount of morphine in his blood, which was the result of 
ingesting either morphine or heroin. 
 
A woman who lived across from 17 Carney Court testified 
that she saw the defendant, Barends, the victim, and others near 
her apartment on the afternoon of November 22; heard shots fired 
at approximately 3:50 P.M.; saw the defendant walk out of the 
entryway of 17 Carney Court; and then saw him run toward Bunker 
Hill Street.  When she walked to the hallway of 17 Carney Court, 
she discovered the victim lying on his stomach.  A boy testified 
that on November 22, when he was fourteen years of age, he was 
waiting for friends near 17 Carney Court; saw four "kids" enter 
the hallway at 17 Carney Court and close the door; heard shots; 
and saw one of the "kids," whom he later identified as the 
defendant from a photographic array, then run from the hallway.  
Mary Johnson, the mother of one of the victim's children, 
testified that the defendant had admitted to her that he had 
been present near the scene of the shooting on the day the 
victim was killed and that the victim owed him money, but he 
denied committing the murder. 
 
The Commonwealth also called Mark Duggan, who testified as 
follows.  A young woman Duggan had been dating at the time lived 
across from 17 Carney Court, and on November 22, he had been 
working on an automobile in a lot behind that address.  Duggan 
5 
 
saw the defendant, the victim, Barends, and two others in the 
area on the afternoon of the shooting and observed that the 
victim was unsteady on his feet.  Later, as Duggan was leaving 
in a taxicab, he observed this group, including the victim, 
Barends, and the defendant, enter the building across the way 
(17 Carney Court).  Subsequent to the victim's death, in 1995, 
while Duggan was being detained after an arrest on an unrelated 
matter, he spoke with the defendant, who also was being 
detained.  The defendant stated that he "didn't understand why 
everyone was coming down on [him]" and that "[h]e wasn't the 
only one there that day." 
 
Barends provided the testimony that most directly tied the 
defendant to the shooting.  After describing the activities in 
which he and the victim had engaged in on November 22, Barends 
testified that the defendant suggested to the group that had 
formed, which included the victim, Frederick Stearns, and 
Timothy McLaughlin (see note 1, supra) that they smoke some 
"angel dust" together.  Although Barends told the defendant that 
the victim did not "need[] any more of that," the defendant and 
the victim went into the hallway of 17 Carney Court presumably 
to smoke.  Barends then followed the two inside.  While Barends 
was near the door to the exterior, he heard gun shots and turned 
to see the defendant pointing a gun at the victim.  Barends then 
ran from the hallway.  About ten minutes later, the defendant 
6 
 
approached Barends, who was visibly shaken, gave him a hug, and 
stated, "How do you think I feel?  I just took a father from his 
son." 
 
The defendant attempted to escape while awaiting trial.  In 
connection with a disciplinary hearing following the escape 
attempt, the defendant stated that he was only twenty-two years 
of age; was facing life in prison; and, were he to have the 
opportunity, he would try to escape again. 
 
The defendant did not testify, and he did not present any 
evidence.  Rather, his defense counsel attacked the credibility 
of Barends and Duggan, pointing out during cross-examination 
that they were criminals who had received benefits from the 
prosecutors in this case and in Federal cases, including 
placement in the witness protection program and payment of 
living expenses. 
 
Discussion.  1.  Pretrial issues.  a.  Severance.  Contrary 
to the defendant's contention, there was no abuse of discretion 
in the judge's declining to sever the defendant's case from 
those of McLaughlin and Stearns.  There was no showing that the 
defenses at trial were mutually antagonistic and irreconcilable.  
See Commonwealth v. Siny Van Tran, 460 Mass. 535, 543 (2011). 
 
b.  Public trial.  In 2011, the defendant filed a second 
motion for a new trial claiming a violation of his right to a 
public trial under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments 
7 
 
to the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the 
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights when court officers excluded 
the public and his family from the court room during jury 
empanelment.  A Superior Court judge (who was not the trial 
judge and was not the judge who decided the first motion for a 
new trial) conducted an evidentiary hearing at which the 
defendant's trial counsel and sister testified, and also a 
newspaper reporter.  In her written memorandum of decision and 
order, the judge made the following findings of fact. 
 
Jury empanelment in this case took place during the course 
of two days, and the court room was closed during at least the 
first day of empanelment.  On the first day of empanelment, 
court officers asked everyone, including the defendant's sister 
and mother, to leave, and they were not permitted to reenter. 
 
At the time of the defendant's trial in 1996, it was a 
well-established custom and practice at the Superior Court in 
Suffolk County to exclude members of the public, including 
members of the media, from the court room during empanelment.  
Court officers would clear the court room of the public before 
the venire was escorted in because of space constraints.  A 
court officer would be posted at the court room door, which bore 
a sign reading, "Jury Selection -- Do Not Enter," during jury 
empanelment. 
8 
 
 
The defendant's trial counsel, who had many years of 
experience and was known by the judge to be "a most capable, 
skilled, and reputable attorney," had no specific memory of a 
court room closure in the defendant's trial.  The defendant's 
trial counsel would not have had any tactical reason to ask that 
the defendant's family members be excluded from the court room.  
His focus would have been on the various aspects of the jury 
selection process.  He would not have objected to the practice 
of clearing the court room for jury empanelment because he was 
not aware that it raised an issue of constitutional dimension 
until the publication of Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 
Mass. 94 (2010).  As such, defense counsel did not think to 
discuss the matter with the defendant or his family.  
Regardless, it was not defense counsel's practice even to have 
the defendant at sidebar during empanelment. 
 
The judge correctly concluded that a procedural waiver 
occurred in this case and that the case stands on all fours with 
our decisions in Commonwealth v. Morganti, 467 Mass. 96, cert. 
denied, 135 S. Ct. 356 (2014), and Commonwealth v. Alebord, 467 
Mass. 106, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2830 (2014).  The lack of 
defense counsel's specific memory on what occurred during the 
jury empanelment in the defendant's case is not significant, as 
he testified to knowledge of the general practice at that time.  
See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 471 Mass. 262, 268-269 (2015) 
9 
 
(finding procedural waiver despite fact that neither defendant 
nor defense counsel had been aware of closure).  Further, any 
knowledge would not have altered his practice, as Cohen (No. 1), 
supra, had not yet been decided.  Thus, in the circumstances, 
defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the 
closure.  See Alebord, supra at 114; Morganti, supra at 104-105.  
Last, we conclude that no prejudice has been shown to have 
arisen from the closure as no "effect on the judgment" has been 
shown to have occurred.  See Commonwealth v. LaChance, 469 Mass. 
854, 858-859 (2014).  Cf. Commonwealth v. Wall, 469 Mass. 652, 
673 (2014); Commonwealth v. Dyer, 460 Mass. 728, 735 n.7 (2011), 
cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2693 (2012). 
 
c.  Exclusion of defendant at sidebar and in off-the-record 
discussions between judge and prospective jurors during jury 
empanelment.  The record indicates that the defendant, through 
counsel, waived his right to be present at sidebar discussions 
during jury empanelment.  The defendant's express consent or 
personal waiver was not required.  See Commonwealth v. Myers, 82 
Mass. App. Ct. 172, 181-182 (2012) (personal waiver of defendant 
only required for "very short list of rights," including whether 
to plead guilty, waive jury trial, testify on own behalf, take 
an appeal, and waive right to counsel).  The defendant's 
additional claim, concerning his absence from certain off-the-
record conversations between the judge and several prospective 
10 
 
jurors, is waived as he made no request to be present, the judge 
did not take steps to exclude him, and defense counsel never 
objected to his absence.  See Commonwealth v. Dyer, 460 Mass. 
728, 738 (2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2693 (2012).  Last, to 
the extent that any error occurred from these particular 
absences, the defendant has not shown that a substantial 
likelihood of a miscarriage of justice resulted. 
 
d.  Peremptory challenges.  There is no merit to the 
defendant's argument that he should be afforded a new trial 
because his Federal and State constitutional rights were 
violated when the trial judge refused to permit peremptory 
challenges of three African-American jurors.  "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, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 893 (2008), quoting 
Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461, 486, cert. denied, 444 
U.S. 881 (1979). 
 
We agree with the motion judge who denied the defendant's 
motion for a new trial on this ground that the record supports 
the trial judge's determination that a pattern of purposeful 
exclusion of members of a discrete group had been established.  
See Commonwealth v. Curtiss, 424 Mass. 78, 80 (1997).  Although 
11 
 
the trial judge did not make a specific finding whether the 
reasons advanced by the exercising party were "bona fide or a 
mere sham," id. at 81, the judge's statements (which clearly 
indicated that he was rejecting the asserted reasons) 
demonstrate that he fulfilled his responsibility to determine 
the reasonableness of the basis given for the challenge and the 
actual motivation in asserting it.  The record supports our 
conclusion that the trial judge acted within his discretion in 
determining the challenges to be race-based and in deciding not 
to allow the challenges.  See id. at 82.  Last, contrary to the 
defendant's contentions, "[a] judge may, of course, raise the 
issue of a Soares violation sua sponte."  Smith, supra at 406. 
 
2.  Trial errors.  a.  Evidentiary errors.  "Generally, 
determinations as to the admissibility of evidence lie 'within 
the sound discretion of the trial judge.'"  Commonwealth v. 
Bins, 465 Mass. 348, 364 (2013), quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 
464 Mass. 16, 19-20 (2012). 
 
i.  Admission of defendant's postindictment statements made 
to Duggan.  The defendant argues that his State and Federal 
constitutional rights were violated by the admission of his 
postindictment statements to Duggan, who was acting as a 
jailhouse informant and had deliberately elicited the 
statements.  The defendant's claim fails because on this record, 
he did not demonstrate the existence of an agency relationship 
12 
 
between Duggan and the government at the time of the challenged 
statement.  See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 448 Mass. 452, 459, 467 
(2007); Commonwealth v. Rancourt, 399 Mass. 269, 274 (1987).  We 
add that the statements at issue only placed the defendant near 
the location where the victim had been killed, which was 
cumulative of other evidence, including the defendant's own 
statement to police and that of other witnesses in the area.  
Thus, even the improper admission of the statements would not 
have required a new trial. 
 
ii.  Admission of Johnson's testimony concerning statements 
made by the defendant.  Much of the challenged testimony of 
Johnson was properly admitted with a contemporaneous limiting 
instruction as bearing on the defendant's motive for killing the 
victim.  See Commonwealth v. Diaz, 422 Mass. 269, 273 (1996).  
Johnson's testimony concerning the defendant's silence after she 
asked him why, if he was innocent, he did not go to the police 
falls into the category of an admission by the defendant.  See 
Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228, 247 n.23 (2014) (silence 
of defendant in response to statement of another may be 
admissible as admission of defendant); Commonwealth v. Babbitt, 
430 Mass. 700, 705-706 (2000) (adoptive admissions include 
statements to which defendant responds by silence).  There was 
no error in the admission of the challenged testimony. 
13 
 
 
iii.  Admission of expert firearms identification 
testimony.  As an initial matter, defense counsel did not 
challenge the expert qualifications of the firearms 
identification witness, Boston police Officer John Seay, at 
trial.  Nor did the defendant request a hearing pursuant to 
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15, 24 (1994), and Daubert v. 
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to establish the 
reliability of the methodology underlying Seay's testimony.  The 
defendant mounted no such challenge to the witness's conclusion, 
based on his microscopic examination, that all the spent shell 
casings and bullets recovered had been fired from the same 
weapon.  These issues (recast as claims for ineffective 
assistance of counsel), thus, have been waived.  Fishman v. 
Brooks, 396 Mass. 643, 649 (1986).  In any event, we are 
satisfied, based on the record indicating Seay's experience in 
firearms identification, including examining 2,000 or more 
firearms over the course of approximately three years, that the 
trial judge acted within his discretion in determining that Seay 
satisfied the foundational requirements to qualify as an expert. 
 
Turning to the substance of Seays's testimony, his 
testimony and conclusion were of a type that this court has long 
found admissible and for which a Daubert-Lanigan hearing is not 
required.  Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827, 845-846 
(2011).  Last, on the record before us no substantial likelihood 
14 
 
of a miscarriage of justice could have occurred from the 
admission of Seay's testimony.  Seay only provided his "opinion" 
at trial and did not express it with a reasonable degree of 
scientific certainty.  Id. at 849.  Further, no weapon was 
recovered, and the defense did not challenge the theory that 
there had been a single shooter at trial; rather, he argued that 
the defendant had not been the shooter.  Moreover, the judge 
correctly instructed the jury that they could accept or reject 
an expert's opinion and give an expert's testimony as much 
weight as they decided it deserved. 
 
iv.  Admission of medical examiner's testimony and death 
certificate.  Assuming without deciding that, in this case and 
on these charges, the content of the laboratory report 
concerning the victim's blood alcohol level should have been 
presented by the author of the report, see Melendez-Diaz v. 
Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 311 (2009), and not by the medical 
examiner, we conclude that its erroneous admission was harmless 
beyond a reasonable doubt.  See Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 456 
Mass. 350, 352 (2010).  The evidence pertained to the victim and 
not to the defendant, went unchallenged during the medical 
examiner's cross-examination, and was cumulative of other 
witness testimony concerning the condition of the victim. 
 
Where the manner of death was properly redacted, the death 
certificate was properly admitted.  Commonwealth v. Wallace, 460 
15 
 
Mass. 118, 127 (2011).  Contrary to the defendant's contention, 
no violation of the confrontation clause occurred in its 
admission because the medical examiner who testified at trial 
concerning its content was the person who had prepared the death 
certificate and had performed the victim's autopsy.  Cf. 
Commonwealth v. Almonte, 465 Mass. 224, 242 n.19 (2013). 
 
v.  Evidence of the defendant's attempted escape.  On the 
record before us we reject the defendant's argument that, 
because it was unduly prejudicial, evidence of the defendant's 
attempted escape from jail should not have been admitted.  See 
Commonwealth v. Oeun Lam, 420 Mass. 615, 617 (1995) (evidence of 
attempted escape admissible to prove consciousness of guilt); 
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 407 Mass. 731, 736 (1990) (whether 
inflammatory nature of evidence outweighs probative value is 
matter within discretion of trial judge). 
 
b.  Restrictions during cross-examination.  The defendant 
argues that he was unduly prejudiced by the trial judge's 
improper restriction of his cross-examination of Duggan and 
Barends.  The judge who denied his motion for a new trial on 
this basis rejected the claim, pointing out that the record 
established a meaningful opportunity to establish bias on the 
part of these witnesses.  We agree.  The trial judge did not 
abuse his discretion in determining the proper scope of cross-
16 
 
examination.  See Commonwealth v. Crouse, 447 Mass. 558, 572 
(2006). 
 
c.  Improper rehabilitation or bolstering witness 
credibility.  The defendant argues for the first time on appeal 
that, in some instances over objection at trial, the judge 
impermissibly allowed the Commonwealth to bolster the 
credibility of certain witnesses with prior consistent 
statements and improperly questioned witnesses concerning their 
fear of the defendant.  The defendant's contentions lack merit.  
In the circumstances here, where defense counsel challenged the 
witnesses' delayed reporting in the opening statements, no 
prejudice arose when the prosecutor elicited the circumstances 
of that disclosure during direct examination.  See Commonwealth 
v. Hall, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 390, 396 (2006).  Nor, in the 
circumstances, did the judge abuse his discretion in permitting 
one witness to testify that she had not gone to police initially 
because she was afraid where she did not attribute that fear to 
the defendant.  See Commonwealth v. Santiago, 458 Mass. 405, 
411-412 (2010); Commonwealth v. Fitzgerald, 376 Mass. 402, 412 
(1978). 
 
d.  Prosecutor's closing argument.  The defendant 
challenges numerous statements in the prosecutor's closing 
argument.  Regarding those that were the subject of an 
objection, we review for prejudicial error.  Commonwealth v. 
17 
 
Andrade, 468 Mass. 543, 551 (2014).  Where no objection was 
made, we "examine whether any of the statements were improper 
and, if so, whether the impropriety created a substantial 
likelihood of a miscarriage of justice."  Commonwealth v. 
Gentile, 437 Mass. 569, 579-580 (2002).  "Remarks made during 
closing arguments are considered in context of the whole 
argument, the evidence admitted at trial, and the judge's 
instructions to the jury."  Commonwealth v. Whitman, 453 Mass. 
331, 343 (2009). 
 
We need not address each of the criticized remarks.  We 
conclude that, for the most part, the prosecutor's argument was 
based on the evidence and fair inferences from the evidence, or 
was a proper response to the argument of defense counsel.  On 
the one occasion in the beginning of her closing argument when 
the prosecutor improperly attacked defense counsel, the judge 
immediately addressed the error by sustaining defense counsel's 
objection and instructing the jury to disregard the argument, 
thus effectively mitigating any potential prejudice.4  In 
                     
 
4 The error was not compounded by improper burden-shifting 
in the prosecutor's opening statement.  In response to the 
prosecutor's statement that the shooting had been an execution 
without justification, the judge gave a curative instruction at 
the end of her opening explaining that the Commonwealth bears 
the burden of proving a lack of justification for the killing.  
No reversible error occurred, in isolation or in combination 
with the challenged remarks of the prosecutor's closing 
argument. 
 
18 
 
addition, the judge correctly instructed the jury that the 
closing arguments of counsel are not evidence, and emphasized 
that the jury were to decide the case on the evidence alone.  No 
prejudicial error resulted.  Even if the prosecutor crossed the 
line with some improper references to fear on the part of three 
of the witnesses, in view of the evidence at trial, defense 
counsel's attack of the credibility of these witnesses, and the 
judge's instructions to the jury, and "because the jury are to 
be given a measure of sophistication in sorting out excessive 
claims made in closing argument," we conclude that any missteps 
made by the prosecutor did not create a substantial likelihood 
of a miscarriage of justice.  See Commonwealth v. Frank, 433 
Mass. 185, 196 (2001).  We conclude that no prejudicial error or 
substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice arose from 
any statements made in the prosecutor's closing argument. 
 
e.  Jury instructions.  i.  Failure to instruct on 
voluntary intoxication.  Because the evidence,5 viewed in a light 
most favorable to the defendant, see Commonwealth v. Little, 431 
Mass. 782, 783 (2000), did not show "debilitating intoxication" 
that could support a reasonable doubt as to whether the 
defendant was capable of forming the requisite criminal intent, 
see Commonwealth v. James, 424 Mass. 770, 789 (1997), the 
                     
 
5 Contrary to the defendant's contention, it was the victim, 
not the defendant, with whom Barends had smoked a "joint" 
earlier in the day on November 22. 
19 
 
evidence did not warrant a voluntary intoxication instruction 
and the judge did not commit error by declining to give it. 
 
ii.  Judge's slip of the tongue.  When viewed in context of 
the entire charge, no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of 
justice resulted when the judge erroneously instructed: 
 
"For any killing to be either first or second degree 
murder, it must be an unlawful killing committed with 
malice aforethought.  If the Commonwealth has not proven to 
you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully 
killed the victim with malice aforethought, you, the jury, 
must find the defendant guilty of both first and second 
degree murder" (emphasis added). 
 
Obviously, the judge inadvertently omitted "not" before 
"guilty."  Where counsel did not object, we question whether he 
recognized it as an obvious slip of the tongue that did not 
warrant an immediate correction.  Regardless, in the 
circumstances, no reasonable juror could have failed to realize 
that it was a mere slip of the tongue.  See Commonwealth v. 
Silva-Santiago, 453 Mass. 782, 805 (2009). 
 
iii.  Definition of malice.  The defendant's challenge to 
the judge's definition of malice was rejected in Commonwealth v. 
Simpson, 434 Mass. 570, 588-589 (2001).  The record here does 
not require a different result. 
 
iv.  Failure to instruct pursuant to DiGiambattista.  The 
defendant's trial took place in 1996, and an instruction 
pursuant to Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 
(2004), was not then required.  See Commonwealth v. Dagley, 442 
20 
 
Mass. 713, 721-722 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 930 (2005).  
There was no error. 
 
v.  Disbelief of witnesses' testimony.  Contrary to the 
defendant's argument, there was no error in an instruction that 
he contends disallowed the jury from disbelieving witnesses.  
See Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 877, 881-882 
(2006). 
 
vi.  Circumstantial evidence.  The defendant challenges, 
for the first time on appeal, one sentence in the judge's 
instructions pertaining to circumstantial evidence, namely, 
"[t]he Commonwealth need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis 
of innocence provided that the evidence as a whole supports a 
conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."  The instruction 
was a correct statement of law and, when viewed in context of 
the charge as a whole, did not create jury confusion.  See 
Commonwealth v. Platt, 440 Mass. 396, 401 (2003); Commonwealth 
v. Merola, 405 Mass. 529, 533-534 (1989). 
 
vii.  Witness's prior inconsistent statement.  On the 
record before us, no prejudicial error arose from the judge's 
decision not to instruct that the jury could consider prior 
inconsistent statements for their substantive value.  See 
Commonwealth v. Swafford, 441 Mass. 329, 338 n.11 (2004). 
 
viii.  Extreme atrocity or cruelty.  The judge did not 
commit error by instructing that, in deciding whether the 
21 
 
defendant acted with extreme atrocity or cruelty, they (the 
jury) served as "the representatives of the conscience of the 
community."  Commonwealth v. Barros, 425 Mass. 572, 585-586 
(1997), and cases cited. 
 
ix.  Inadequacy of police investigation.  The defendant's 
claim concerning the decision not to give an instruction 
pursuant to Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472, 485-486 
(1980), has no merit.  See Commonwealth v. Lao, 460 Mass. 12, 23 
(2011).  On this record, there was no error. 
 
f.  Sleeping juror.  Where the trial judge found that he 
had been watching the jury and did not see any jurors sleeping, 
he did not abuse his discretion in declining to conduct a voir 
dire to determine whether, as defense counsel suspected, one 
particular juror had been sleeping.  See Commonwealth v. 
Beneche, 458 Mass. 61, 77-78 (2010); Commonwealth v. Morales, 
453 Mass. 40, 47 (2009). 
 
3.  New trial motion predicated on prosecutorial 
misconduct.  a.  Withholding exculpatory evidence.  The record 
does not support the defendant's claim that he be afforded a new 
trial on the ground that the prosecutor prejudicially withheld 
material, exculpatory evidence.  The order denying the 
defendant's motion for a new trial on this ground sets forth 
much of the relevant facts, with the record providing the 
remaining information.  As an initial matter, not all of the 
22 
 
"evidence" was material or exculpatory, or even withheld.  Even 
assuming the contrary, we see no basis for concluding that the 
defendant's rights were irremediably prejudiced by such failure 
to disclose.  See Commonwealth v. Caillot, 454 Mass. 245, 261-
262 (2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 948 (2010). 
 
b.  Presentation of false or materially misleading evidence 
concerning Duggan's testimony about when he dated a prior girl 
friend.  The record does not support the defendant's claim that 
he is entitled to a new trial because his convictions were 
obtained by the presentation of testimony of Duggan that the 
prosecution knew to be false.  "Simply because a witness alters 
some portion of his testimony at the time of trial is not a 
sufficient reason to conclude that the new testimony is false, 
or that the Commonwealth knew or had reason to know that it was 
false."  Commonwealth v. McLeod, 394 Mass. 727, 743, cert. 
denied, 474 U.S. 919 (1985).  "Presentation of a witness who 
recants or contradicts his prior testimony is not to be confused 
with eliciting perjury.  It was for the jury to decide whether 
or not to credit the witness."  Id. at 743-744, quoting United 
States v. Holladay, 566 F.2d 1018, 1019 (5th Cir.), cert. 
denied, 439 U.S. 831 (1978).  The facts of this case fall into 
this latter category. 
 
Conclusion.  Based on the foregoing, we discern neither 
error nor abuse of discretion in the denial of the defendant's 
23 
 
motions for a new trial.  We thus affirm the orders denying his 
motions for a new trial and affirm his convictions.  There is no 
basis to reduce the verdict or to order a new trial pursuant to 
G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.