Title: Commonwealth v. Lee

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11447 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  BRIAN LEE.1 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     January 9, 2018. - May 15, 2018. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Homicide.  Constitutional Law, Jury, Fair trial.  Due Process of 
Law, Fair trial.  Jury and Jurors.  Practice, Criminal, 
Empanelment of jury, Jury and jurors, Capital case. 
 
 
 
 
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on January 23, 2007. 
 
 
The case was tried before John C. Cratsley, J. 
 
 
 
Elizabeth A. Billowitz for the defendant. 
Julianne Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
 
 
CYPHER, J.  The defendant, Brian Lee, appeals from his 
conviction of murder in the first degree.  We affirm. 
 
Background.  The victim was the defendant's father.  Ruth 
Collins and her daughter, Caron Collins, had known the defendant 
                     
 
1 As is our custom, we refer to the defendant by the name 
appearing in the indictment. 
2 
 
 
for several years at the time of the homicide.2  The defendant 
was friendly with Caron and had done housework for Ruth.  On 
October 28, 2006, Ruth saw the defendant walk behind her house 
carrying white garbage bags.  Soon after, the defendant left 
without any garbage bags.  Ruth and Caron checked the backyard 
for the garbage bags.  They found white garbage bags in a 
compost bin, and inside one of the garbage bags, they found a 
human head.  When police arrived, officers found two arms and 
two legs in the other garbage bags. 
 
Ruth reported that she had seen the defendant carrying 
white garbage bags behind her house.  Police officers learned 
that the defendant's father had sought an abuse prevention order 
against him three days earlier.3  Officers went to the 
defendant's father's house to check on his safety.  In the 
house, officers found white garbage bags and a human torso in a 
plastic tub.  A fingerprint on the tub was later identified as 
the defendant's. 
 
That same day, the defendant spoke with the police.  He 
told detectives that he had dismembered his father but not 
killed him.  The defendant also told police that he had thrown 
away his father's mattress, sheets, and blanket because they 
                     
 
2 We refer to Ruth and Caron Collins by their first names to 
avoid confusion. 
 
 
3 The victim had also sought abuse prevention orders against 
the defendant in 2000 and 2004. 
3 
 
 
were covered in blood.  The medical examiner testified that 
multiple blows to the head caused the victim's death.  The 
defendant's medical expert testified that the victim's death was 
a homicide. 
 
At trial, the defendant represented himself4 and conferred 
with standby counsel.  His theory of his defense was that the 
Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proof, the police and 
medical examiner altered evidence, and the victim was not the 
defendant's father. 
 
Discussion.  The sole issue the defendant raises on appeal 
is that the seating of a biased juror violated the defendant's 
right to a fair and impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution and art. 12 of the Massachusetts 
Declaration of Rights.  During jury empanelment, the judge 
informed each juror that participating in the trial would 
include viewing "graphic photos of body parts" and inquired 
about the impact of those photographs on each juror's 
impartiality.  The defendant contends that prospective juror no. 
226 "expressed doubts about his ability to be fair and 
impartial" and was seated on the jury nonetheless.  The 
transcript contains the following exchange between the judge and 
prospective juror no. 226: 
                     
 
4 The judge conducted a proper colloquy with the defendant 
about waiving his right to counsel. 
4 
 
 
The judge:  "All right.  In this trial you will see some 
graphic photos of body parts, and the question is whether 
you think that would affect your ability to be a fair and 
impartial juror?" 
 
 
The juror:  "Yes." 
 
The judge:  "All right, do you have any other concerns 
about being a fair and impartial juror for a first degree 
murder prosecution?" 
 
 
The juror:  "No, sir." 
 
(Emphasis supplied.) 
 
 
After the judge finished questioning the prospective juror, 
neither the defendant nor the Commonwealth opposed the juror's 
empanelment.  Later, when discussing another juror, the 
defendant asked to challenge prospective juror no. 226.  The 
judge declined to allow the defendant do so.  The defendant 
argues that the seating of prospective juror no. 226 was 
structural error and seeks a new trial. 
 
The defendant's argument and the Commonwealth's response 
were premised on the trial transcript.  After hearing oral 
argument on this case, we acquired the transcriptionist's audio 
recordings and learned that the transcript was inaccurate.5  The 
actual exchange between prospective juror no. 226 and the judge 
is as follows: 
                     
 
5 After oral argument, the defendant also sought the 
transcriptionist's audio recordings and was erroneously informed 
that no recordings of the trial existed.  Upon release of this 
opinion, we will ensure that the defendant will have access to 
all recordings of the trial. 
5 
 
 
The judge:  "You will see in this trial some graphic photos 
of body parts.  The question is whether you think you could 
see them and remain a fair and impartial juror." 
 
The juror:  "Yes." 
 
The judge:  "Do you have any other concerns about being a 
fair and impartial juror in a first degree murder 
prosecution?" 
 
The juror:  "No, sir." 
 
(Emphasis supplied.) 
 
 
The judge conducted a sufficient colloquy with juror no. 
226 to determine that he would not be a biased juror.  We 
therefore discern no error. 
 
We have thoroughly reviewed the entire record in accordance 
with our duty under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and decline to reduce 
the degree of guilt or order a new trial.  The defense that the 
Commonwealth did not meet its burden is without merit; the 
physical and eyewitness evidence against the defendant was 
overwhelming.  During closing argument and cross-examination, 
the defendant advanced theories about the police and medical 
examiner fabricating evidence and misidentifying the victim as 
his father.  Neither of these theories had any evidentiary 
support. 
 
Given the transcription error, we conclude that the 
defendant should not be subject to the gatekeeper provision of 
G. L. c. 278, § 33E, for any issue that was not apparent from 
6 
 
 
the transcript and could only be discovered from the audio 
recording of the proceedings. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.