Mass. SJC Ruling On Request For New Trial by Convicted Murderer Shane Moffat
Mass. SJC Ruling On Request For New Trial by Convicted Murderer Shane Moffat
SJC-08733
The case was tried before Tina S. Page, J.; motions for
postconviction discovery and for a new trial were considered by
her; and following review by this court, 478 Mass. 292 (2017), a
second motion for postconviction discovery was considered
by David Ricciardone, J., and a motion for reconsideration was
considered by Page, J.
the defendant due to his court room behavior; (4) the trial
(2020).
and the victim's cousin, George Marshall. Three days later, the
car, which was a Toyota. The defendant told Marshall that the
elsewhere, and that Marshall could not come. Marshall let the
victim borrow the Toyota, and the victim agreed that he would
later that afternoon. The victim drove away with the defendant
phone to place a call. The cell phone signal from that call
4
After the victim did not return with the Toyota by the
had not seen or heard from the victim since earlier that day
when the victim had dropped off the defendant. Later that
bag in the taxicab, which contained the boots the defendant was
3 The victim was still wearing his jewelry, but there was no
wallet or identification on him.
5
factory, and the driver's seat was soaked with blood. Officers
recovered the victim's baseball cap from the brush next to the
The police later recovered from the storm drain the shotgun
murder the victim. The police also recovered from the taxicab a
boot.
but they did not find him there. 4 The defendant fled to New
off the defendant, and the defendant did not see the victim
defendant gave two away, and because the third smelled like it
storm drain.
had recovered the shotgun barrel and the defendant's boots from
the taxicab, and that the police knew the defendant had used the
dollars[?]"
the four men talked, the defendant heard a loud bang and saw the
victim slump over the steering wheel. The defendant then helped
remove the victim's body from the car and placed it in the trunk
claiming that Ayah and Quentin both wore surgical gloves, while
he did not, and that he had let Ayah borrow his boots.
defendant and the victim then followed Ayah and Quentin in the
mother's house. Once there, Ayah and Quentin got out of their
car, and Quentin shot the victim while standing behind the
victim's body from the Toyota and dropped him down the
embankment. After, Ayah drove the defendant away from the scene
killed because Marshall and the victim had robbed someone in New
owned the murder weapon, that he had disposed of it, and that
Jackson Road, the defendant admitted that he, not Ayah, had been
wearing his boots during the murder, but he could not explain
claimed that he did not shoot the victim and that he did not
know that Ayah and Quentin had planned to do so. The defendant
of murder in the first degree with his appeals from the denials
trial, stated:
contained in the FBI report that the defendant was not alone at
the time of the murder, and the Commonwealth knew or should have
known that its theory that the defendant acted alone was false
violated his due process rights and entitle him to a new trial.
references that Screw told Wolfe that the defendant shot the
(2004) ("It was not the prosecutor's duty to try the defendant's
Wilson testified that the defendant was the last person with the
guy that was with [the victim]." Later, Wilson testified that
she "knew [the defendant] was the last person with [the
that the defendant was the last person to see the victim alive.
600, 606, cert. denied, 568 U.S. 968 (2012); Mass. G. Evid.
the victim did not return the Toyota –- because the defendant
was the last person Marshall saw with the defendant. Marshall's
knew the victim had been killed, as the police had not yet
reversible error.
have been obvious to the jury, as well as to all counsel and the
phone after the murder. The police found the defendant's mail
the improper testimony from the other evidence, the judgment was
the defendant did not object at trial, we review any error for a
the victim was killed: "I purport to you, ladies and gentlemen,
however, extrapolate from that demeanor and argue that the jury
and the "stone cold" nature of the killing went beyond benign
the victim.
described supra. 13
judge need not use any particular words in instructing the jury
S.C., 414 Mass. 123 (1993). See also Commonwealth v. Pires, 389
report, which indicated that the defendant was not at the crime
Screw had witnessed the defendant kill the victim. The Federal
named DJ and that the defendant was with him when that occurred.
conclude that the trial judge did not err in denying those
motions.
The trial judge denied the motion, concluding that the defendant
both denials.
must make a prima facie showing that the evidence sought would
598.
So ordered.