Criminal – Murder – Third-party culprit evidence

Listen to this article

Where a defendant convicted of first-degree murder filed a motion for a new trial contending that the commonwealth failed to disclose third-party culprit evidence, it was an abuse of discretion for the motion to be denied without a hearing, as the defendant has made an adequate showing of potential prejudice, warranting further inquiry into the credibility and reliability of the information.

“On the evening of November 4, 2015, a resident living near a secluded dirt road in Worcester heard a loud bang. Looking toward the direction of the sound, the resident observed flames emanating from a wooded area. In response to the resident’s 911 call, firefighters arrived at the scene and located a burning vehicle along the dirt road. After extinguishing the fire, they discovered a severely charred body reclined in the front passenger seat. The victim was later identified as Marie Martin. An autopsy subsequently revealed a bullet lodged in the victim’s skull, specifically in the cheekbone area.

“The ensuing investigation led police to the defendant, Donovan E. Goparian, who was indicted by a grand jury for murder. In 2020, a jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree based on a theory of deliberate premeditation.

“Following his conviction, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial. Among other arguments, he contended that the Commonwealth failed to disclose exculpatory evidence — namely, statements made by a Federal inmate during a proffer session — that implicated a third party in the victim’s murder. The defendant also sought postconviction discovery concerning the proffer session. The motion judge, who also presided over the defendant’s trial, denied the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing and, without addressing it, failed to act on the defendant’s request for postconviction discovery. The motion for a new trial was then denied. The defendant appealed from both his conviction and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

“In this consolidated appeal, the defendant raises multiple claims of error. We address only two: (1) whether the judge abused his discretion by denying the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion for a new trial, and (2) whether the judge erred in failing to act on the defendant’s request for postconviction discovery. We conclude that the judge abused his discretion on both grounds.

“Accordingly, we vacate the order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial, reverse the order denying the defendant’s request for an evidentiary hearing, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. …

“Here, the judge erred in discrediting [Vito] Nuzzolilo’s affidavit — and by extension, the statements memorialized in the Nuzzolilo report — without the benefit of live testimony. …

“Accordingly, the judge abused his discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing. The defendant has made an adequate showing of potential prejudice, warranting further inquiry into the credibility and reliability of the Nuzzolilo information. … In so concluding, we again acknowledge that reversal based on the denial of a motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing is ‘particularly rare’ — and we do not suggest that such a denial ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion (citation omitted). … But this is that rare case. …

“… For largely the same reasons as noted above, the defendant’s affidavits from counsel and Nuzzolilo established a prima facie case warranting postconviction discovery. …

“In these circumstances, we conclude that the defendant has met the standard for both postconviction discovery and an evidentiary hearing. We therefore reverse the order denying the request for an evidentiary hearing and vacate the order denying the motion for a new trial. We further remand the matter to the Superior Court for the entry of an order allowing postconviction discovery concerning the Nuzzolilo information and for an evidentiary hearing concerning the Nuzzolilo information. If discovery yields additional evidence relevant to the defendant’s claim for relief, the defendant shall be permitted to amend his motion for a new trial accordingly.”

Commonwealth v. Goparian (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-092-25) (32 pages) (Georges, J.) A motion for a new trial was heard by Daniel M. Wrenn, J., in Superior Court. Merritt Schnipper on appeal for the defendant; Donna-Marie Haran for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13391) (July 23, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.