SJC orders new trial based on evidence about eyewitness

A defendant convicted of first-degree murder has been granted a new trial based on nondisclosed, newly discovered and newly available evidence.

A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of first-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm. The prosecution primarily relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses who said that they observed the defendant shoot the victim. At all times, the defendant has advanced a defense based on misidentification.

The defendant filed a motion arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because, among other reasons, evidence that one of the eyewitnesses was psychiatrically hospitalized at the time of her testimony constituted either newly discovered or nondisclosed evidence that would have allowed the defendant to challenge her credibility and the reliability of her identification. That motion was allowed by Superior Court Judge Peter B. Krupp, who concluded that, given the totality of the nondisclosed, newly discovered and newly available evidence, justice may not have been done.

“Discerning no error of law or abuse of discretion by the motion judge, we affirm the allowance of the defendant’s motion for a new trial,” Justice Frank M. Gaziano wrote for the SJC.

“Here, the motion judge determined that the defendant could have used [the eyewitness]’s hospitalization and treatment as impeachment evidence at trial, reasoning that the defense ‘would have surely brought out the fact of [her] hospitalization as a basis to attack her credibility.’ … [The eyewitness]’s treatment records reveal multiple diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and mixed personality disorder with antisocial and borderline features,” Gaziano wrote.

“Given this evidence, the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the defendant could have used [the eyewitness]’s history of mental health hospitalizations and diagnoses to attack her credibility and the reliability of her eyewitness identification. … Given the evidence linking information contained in the treatment records to [the eyewitness]’s capacity to perceive, remember, and articulate the alleged events, the records hold impeachment value,” he added.

The 34-page decision is Commonwealth v. Pina, Lawyers Weekly No. 10-088-26.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.