Massachusetts SJC Ruling in Berkshire Triple Murder Case
Massachusetts SJC Ruling in Berkshire Triple Murder Case
SJC-12017
the three victims were killed, the defendant, Hall, and Chalue
bags, and Hall arranged for the burial of the plastic bags.2
1
The defendant was also found guilty on three indictments
charging kidnapping and three indictments charging witness
intimidation.
2
Adam Lee Hall and David Chalue were found guilty of the
three murders in separate trials that preceded the defendant's
trial.
3
regarding the scars on his right arm; and (4) that the
G. L. c. 278, 33E.
joint venture, because the defendant does not dispute that there
killings.
believed that Glasser had stolen and sold motor vehicle parts
a telephone call. The State police arrested Hall that day and
kidnapped her and shot at her when she escaped; another friend
charges against Hall and those who participated with him in the
scheme.
front and kept a Hells Angels sticker in his Jeep and apartment.
motorcycle."
5
"Drummer Dave,"4 who he said had robbed him and then "snitched"
him that Hall will "get him." Later that evening, they drove to
3
The Buick at other times during the trial was described as
gold in color.
4
Andrew Johnston, a childhood friend of Robert Chadwell,
testified that people often referred to David Glasser by his
5
nickname, "Drummer Dave." There was some confusion as to
the color of the vehicle that was at Rose Dawson's residence at
1:30 A.M. Edwin Sutton, Rose's father described it as a Jeep
Wrangler and testified that, although he was not sure, he
thought it might have been yellow. Ocean Sutton, one of Edwin's
daughters, described it as a green Jeep Wrangler. The
defendant's Jeep is black.
6
that evening, Hall, Chalue, and the defendant were at the Hells
the defendant's home, he pulled the firearms out of the dog food
bag and asked the defendant where he kept brake cleaner and
upstairs with Sewall. While they were upstairs, Hall and Chalue
on Friday night and was at her home on Saturday night. She made
A.M. on Sunday, but the defendant did not answer and she left a
him again at 1:40 A.M., and again left a voicemail message after
Wrangler.
he had recently moved, the police found four or five Black and
The store clerk observed that Hall had mud on his shirt and
that his boots and blue jeans were wet, as was the cash he
handed over to pay for the items. Tropical Storm Irene had
rain and high winds for much of the night and into the morning.
5
There was some confusion as to the color of the vehicle
that was at Rose Dawson's residence at 1:30 A.M. Edwin Sutton,
Rose's father described it as a Jeep Wrangler and testified
that, although he was not sure, he thought it might have been
yellow. Ocean Sutton, one of Edwin's daughters, described it as
a green Jeep Wrangler. The defendant's Jeep is black.
9
and parked his Buick on the front lawn. The defendant's Jeep
arrived behind the Buick. Hall walked from the Buick to the
which Hall was driving. Hall, who was wet and not wearing
shoes, asked Dawson and her friend, Alexandra Ely, who was
breakfast. Hall gave them money, which was soaking wet, and
told them to buy breakfast food and bleach; he also told them to
wash their hands after handling the money. As Dawson and Ely
told her to skip the bleach and not look in a bag in the
vehicle. They looked inside the bag and saw what looked like a
delete her call log and tell no one that he had borrowed it.
Glasser, as well as "a fat guy" and a black man who were with
another round, Glasser ran into the woods. "Davey" ran after
him and shot him, but did not kill him. "Davey" brought Glasser
back to Hall, who then shot him. Hall said the other two men
were stabbed to death. He said they thought the black man was
dead and left him but, when they came back, they saw him sitting
victims] up," and added that "one of the guys really enjoyed
torturing and cutting them up." Hall noted that it was "raining
hole to bury the bodies. Hall added that, if Casey did this
11
with him to dig the hole that day, but Casey said he would meet
property and parked it there; another person was with him in the
trial as Chalue. Hall opened the trunk of the Buick and said
the property where Casey kept the excavator. Casey used the
excavator to dig a large hole, and Hall opened the trunk and
6
David Casey testified that Scott Langdon was living with
and planned to marry Casey's sister. Casey knew that Langdon
was cooperating with the police regarding the pending charges
against Hall.
7
The defendant arrived for work as usual on Monday morning
at the design firm where he was employed as a gardener.
12
salvage yard and sold it for scrap, where it was later placed in
back seat was mostly missing, and the carpet had been removed
and then drove back in the other direction, arguably for the
station, the police seized and searched the Jeep, but found
the location of the bodies, the police dug up the plastic bags
parts revealed that all of the victims had been shot and
stabbed; their neck, arms, and legs had been removed, and two of
the bodies had been cut through the torso. Most of the
back to his cell, the defendant said to Chalue, "[Y]ou hear what
stoolie."
men.
671, 677 (1979). The defendant notes accurately that there was
466 Mass. 707, 713, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2855 (2014). We
helping Hall in the killing would curry favor with Hall and
kidnapped and killed, the defendant was with Hall and Chalue at
two telephone calls and a text message from his girl friend. As
15
time to accomplish and that it would have been bloody and messy
time were in the trunk of the Buick. The defendant was still
8
Hall's statements to Casey were admissible for their truth
against the defendant because they were made to induce Casey's
cooperation in burying the bodies and therefore were made in the
course of and in furtherance of the joint venture. See
Commonwealth v. Winquist, 474 Mass. 517, 522 (2016), and cases
cited.
16
with Hall and Chalue when they returned to the Dawson residence
at 10:30 A.M., with Hall now driving the defendant's Jeep, and
Chalue, and that the defendant was the only third person with
around the time period when the bodies were likely being
reasonable doubt that the defendant was the third person who
spikes.
470 Mass. 228, 249 (2014). See also Commonwealth v. Drew, 397
Mass. 202, 206 (1985) (prior bad act admissible where it is not
reverse for an abuse of discretion only where the judge made "'a
that "one of the guys really enjoyed torturing and cutting [the
arms and legs tends to identify the defendant as the person who
who enjoyed "cutting [the victims] up." If Hall had said that
probative of identity.
allow its admission only where "the prior events and the
v. Holliday, 450 Mass. 794, 815, 555, cert. denied sub. nom
9
In dissent, Justice Lowy argues that our decision to admit
the anatomical drawings is improper because "the connection
between the defendant's other conduct and the charged conduct is
squarely based on an impermissible propensity inference." Post
at . While the admission of any evidence that suggests the
defendant's bad character risks inviting the jury to draw the
improper inference that the defendant acted in conformity with
his past conduct, the admission of the drawings in this case is
not premised on such an improper inference. Rather, the
drawings invite the jury to conclude that the defendant matched
Hall's description of the third participant in the crime. While
it would be improper to admit the drawings for the purpose of
demonstrating that the defendant was predisposed to commit the
crime, there is nothing improper about asking the jury to infer
that the uncommon trait Hall attributed to the crime's third
participant is also attributable to the defendant.
22
who would have testified against Hall in two criminal cases, and
to silence the other two victims, who would otherwise have been
trial judge did not abuse his discretion where the probative
weight of the evidence was less compelling than it was here, and
even without direct proof that the particular weapon was in fact
evidence that the baseball bat with spikes could have been used
348, 353 (1994) (error not prejudicial "if we are sure that the
error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight
effect").
judge did not give one. As a result, the jury were not told
10
The judge did instruct the jury that the defendant's
affiliation with the Hells Angels may not be considered as
evidence of a bad character or a criminal personality.
26
458 Mass. 461, 479-480 (2010) (prior bad act evidence not
miscarriage of justice.
unfair prejudice.
that the assailants had the tools with them when they killed the
the tools after the killings based on Hall's statement that they
left the scene believing that the black man was dead and were
that the three assailants had access to the types of tools that
cleaver. He also properly argued that the jury should not infer
that the cleaver was not used in the killings because it did not
expect that [the cleaver] would test positive unless it was very
improper argument.
30
them up." This was fair argument based on inferences from the
the evidence by telling the jury that the defendant had "boasted
v. Gagliardi, 418 Mass. 562, 571 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S.
1091 (1995). But its use was not reversible error "where it was
11
In Commonwealth v. Russell, 470 Mass. 464, 477-478
(2015), we exercised "our inherent supervisory power to require
a uniform instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
uses more modern language, but preserves the power, efficacy,
and essence of the Webster charge." The trial in this case
resulted in verdicts in 2014, before the new instruction was
mandated.
32
the phrase," Pinckney, supra at 345, "[w]e have never held that
convinces us that the omission did not create a risk that the
Mass. 553, 562 (1991) (no error where moral certainty language
guilt.
Judgments affirmed.
LOWY, J. (dissenting, with whom Lenk, J., joins). I agree
dissent.
this sounds like the language often used to describe the type of
(1) identity, (2) state of mind, and (3) motive. I address each
case.
1
When asked whether the dismemberment of the victims was
consistent with the surgical illustrations, the Commonwealth's
2
Rather, the danger is that the jury will overvalue the evidence.
identity into two categories: (1) modus operandi, and (2) what
(Giannelli).
See Giannelli, supra at 174. That the defendant had the means
weapon against the danger of undue prejudice that the jury will
2
As the court notes, ante at , a similarity that is
merely general is a reason to exclude evidence of other conduct.
The danger that a jury will consider prior conduct as propensity
evidence is at its apex when the prior conduct resembles the
charged conduct, but is not sufficiently similar for purposes of
modus operandi.
5
that it was more likely that he committed the crime due to this
Adam Lee Hall's statement that "one of the guys really enjoyed"
chopping the victims up. The court says that the anatomical
6
by medieval weapons.
Unlike the present case, the court's example does not implicate
the crime. Thus, the example does not ask the jury to conclude
propensity inference.
3
The court concludes that the dismembered bodies were
likely all placed in Hall's Buick. Ante at . Further, after
the killings, Rose Dawson and Alexandra Ely, who were not
alleged participants in the killings, drove in the Buick to a
supermarket. They did not look in the trunk, but they also did
not testify that they saw any blood or body parts in the cabin
of the automobile. Moreover, David Casey testified that he
later observed Hall open the trunk of the Buick and drop a
number of plastic garbage bags into the hole Casey had dug.
Accordingly, chopping up the bodies may well have been a
practical measure for purposes of transporting three bodies in
the trunk of the vehicle, while still retaining the vehicle for
limited use until the time it could be destroyed. Whether the
dismemberment of the bodies had any practical purpose was not an
issue at trial and was not argued by the Commonwealth on appeal.
8
murders.
from one witness that she observed "a lot of creepy shit
of mind.
evidence of motive).
for the jury as to why the defendant had committed the crime.4
4
There was also a greater quantum of evidence that the
defendant in Guy, 454 Mass. at 443-444 & n.3, had a significant
fascination with serial killings, including a large number of
books seized from his home (which were not themselves admitted
in evidence, but were referenced) and testimony from his
coworkers attesting to his ongoing fascination. Here, the only
evidence of the defendant's "fascination" was that he had placed
posters on his wall, and the record suggests that the posters
had not been displayed on the wall for a long period of time
because the defendant was still in the process of moving his
belongings from his previous residence into this residence.
11
purpose.
the inquiry, but there are five factors that I believe enhanced
limiting instruction).
example, in Guy, 454 Mass. at 443-444 & n.3, in which we did not
of bad character, the jury were left to infer that the remainder
that the jury deliberated nearly five full days before reaching
verdicts.
5
Of course, the Commonwealth is entitled to prove its case
entirely by circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Woods, 466
Mass. 707, 713, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2855 (2014).