Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Judge Constance Sweeney Ruling in Robert Honsch Murder Case

    Enviado por

    The Republican/MassLive.com
    3K visualizações9 páginas
    Hampden Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney rules prosecution can discuss Robert Honsch being charged for his daughter's murder at his trial for his wife's killing

    Título original

    Judge Constance Sweeney ruling in Robert Honsch murder case

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Hampden Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney rules prosecution can discuss Robert Honsch being charged for his daughter's murder at his trial for his wife's killing

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    3K visualizações9 páginas

    Judge Constance Sweeney Ruling in Robert Honsch Murder Case

    Enviado por

    The Republican/MassLive.com
    Hampden Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney rules prosecution can discuss Robert Honsch being charged for his daughter's murder at his trial for his wife's killing

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 9
    COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAMPDEN, s. SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 144 uppen county ‘BUPERIOR SOURY commonweatra Bes « WAR 2 1 207 omar wossen CBee Gi UueORANDIDLOP DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION Robert Honsch is before this cout charged with the murder of his wife, Marcia Honsch, eis alo charged io the State of Connecticut withthe murder of his seventeen yearold daughter izabeth Both women were sotto death with 4 caliber bullets. Elizabeth's body was found on September 28, 1995, in New Britain, CT. Macia’s body was found eight days later on October 6, 1995, ina wooded area near the Tolland State Forest in Tolland, MA.! The identities ‘of the women and their relationship to ore another and tothe defendant remained unknown for ‘many years. The defendant now moves inline to exchade evidence of Hlizabeth's murder at tral. On March 15, 2017, the court eld a hearing onthe mate. For the following reasons, the efendant’s motion is DENIED. COMMONWEALTH'S ALLEGATIONS The Commonwealth represents tat it will poe the following evidence at wil 1m 1995, te defendant ved with Marts and Biizabeth in Brewster, NY. On September 28, 1995, Elizabeth’s body was diseovered behind a stip mall in New Britain, CT. Her body was ‘wrapped inside plestic garbage bags and sleeping bags and did not possess any form of | "vise re fered to byte fet mes ei ou identification, When he body was removed fom the sleping bag it was warm tothe touch, indicating that the vitim kel ded on September 27,1995. A medical examiner determined that the viet died from a gunshot wound tothe head. Ballistic evidene indicated thatthe killer had used 45 caliber ammunition te shoot her, Latent palm pins were found on the plastic bags ooasing Blizabsth's body. Deeitethe evidence found at the scene, the Connestiut State Polise ‘were unable to identify Bizaeth and her identity would remain unknown for many years. ‘On October 6, 1995, hike discovered Marcas body inthe woods near the dumping {grounds tthe Tolland State Forest campground in Tolland, MA? The body was badly ‘decomposed and didnot possess any form of identification, A medical examiner determined the ‘tim died several days before the hiker discovered the body. The medical examiner recovered a A caliber projectile fom the vitim’s hea, andthe police recovered the lend core of a projectile fn the roadway near the vi im’s body. Due tothe body's desomposed stat ad the lack of any form of identification, police were unable o identity the victim a the time. [At some point after the bodies were discovered, Massachusetts and Connecticut slate police determined that the murders may have been commited by te same person and that he vets might be related, Extensive DNA testing eventually revealed that the vets were mother and daugver. Hower, thei identities remsined unknown. ‘Within afew weeks of the discovery of Marcas body, the defendant went othe homes of Maria's relatives and old them that he had anew job in Australia and Maia and Blizabeth had steady relocated there and that he would join them later The relatives received the news with skepticism because nether woman had talked about moving to Australi instead, Elizabeth Tolland, MA i ity mils not of New Bt, CT. had recently told her aunt that he was moving to White Pins, NY. Asa result oftheir skepticism, the relatives gan searching for Macias nd Plizabth's whereabouts on the fnteet. That endeavor was uu, Asa res, he relatives contacted New York authorities to report that the women were ising, “Marcia and Hlfzabeths family continued their search and eventually located and mt with ‘he defendants brother and sister-in-law, who wote living in New York. The family learned that, while the defendants brother and sister-in-law had not seen or heard fiom the defendant in yeats, they ad seceived a letter from Cheryl Tyree, who identified herself as the defendant's wife. Ms ‘Tyree stated in the leter that upon their mariage in 2000, the defendant hed assumed hee surname of Tyree and that they now lived in Ohio with their three children, After receiving the letter, the family contacted Ms. Tyree. She informed them that her | husband told er that he had never heen marted, did nat have any children or siblings, and that his parents were deceased. Ms. Tyree doubted this information and eventually began to search for information about her husband's past, Asa result, she learned of the existence and location of her husband’ brother and wrote to him. In the meantime, the New Yor investigation into the women's disappearance remained relatively dormant until June 2014, when the family notified the authorities ofthe information | ‘provided by the defendant's brother and Ms, Tyree, With the investigation now revitl the "New York autor inquired into unsolved homicides in nearby sttes. This led them to contact | both Massachusetts and Connecticut law enforcement officers regarding the unidentified mother and daughter whose bodies were found, in Tolland , MA and New Briten, CT, respootively, approximately the same time that Marcia asd Elizabeth disappeared from their home in New | ‘York. During the time between the discovery ofthe bodies andthe family’s contact withthe New England authorities, the Massachusetts state police obtained a post mortem reconstruction sketch ‘of the body found in Tolland. The family identified Marcia from the sketch and identified Elizabeth from an autopsy photograph. A DNA sample fom Marca's other daughter, who is Elissboth’s half-sister, confirmed Marcia and Elizabeth identities, ‘Further investigation revealed that Marcia and Elizabeth never applied for or possessed US. Passports nor is there any record af the defendant, Marcia or Elizabeth every (raveling to ‘Australia. However, records revealed thatthe defendant traveled to Pretoria, South Aftica in ‘November, 1995, less than two months afer the homicides. ‘Massachusetts and Connectint investigators traveled to Dayton, Ohio and interviewed the defendant, who claimed he suffered amnesia and neither remembered being married to Marcia or fathering Elizabeth The investigators also obtained a search warrant from an Ohio court forthe defendant's DNA, palm prints, and fingerprints His palm print allegedly matel, thee palm prints found on the plastic bags that shrouded Elizabeth's body. The investigation also ‘revealed thatthe defendant had camped atthe Tolland campgrounds on atleast one occasion before the homicides. Rlizbeth's body was, in pa, wrapped in sleeping bags. ‘On September 11, 2014, » Hampden County grand jury indicted the defendant for ‘Marcia’s murder. The defendants charged in Connectiout withthe murder of Elizabeth and is presently awaiting tial in that jursdition, DISCUSSION ‘The principle behind admissibility ofa defendant's prior bad act is that such evidence is inadmissible to show hed character or propensity to commit the ime. Commomveatth v. Rutherford, No. $1C-12094, slip op. at 18 (Sup. Jud, CL Mar. 16,2017), Evidence of prior bad ‘acts may be admissible if tis relevant fora nonpropensity purpose, such as “common scheme, pattern of operation, identity intent, or motive,” ifthe Commonwealth shows that its probative value is not outweighed by the risk of unfsir prejudice to the defendant. Commomveaithv, Forte, £469 Mass, 469,479 (2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Marrero, 427 Mass. 65,67 (1098). It may also be used where the bad-acts evidence i inextricably intertwined wih the description of events surounding the crime, Id. Here the expected evidence from the Commonwealth is ‘admissible to show common seheme and identity. 1. Admissibility of Evidence of Elizabeth's Homicide on Grounds of Common Scheme and aentty ‘To admit evidence of uncharged conduct under theory of common scheme, it “aust usually be related in time, place, and/or form tothe charges being tried. There must be, in other ‘words, sufficient nexus to render the conduct relevant and probative." Commonwealth v. Walker, 442 Mass. 185, 202 2004), quoting PJ. Licos, M.S, Brodin, & M. Avery, Massachusetts Evidence § 4.4.6, at 155 (Ith ed. 1999). Offenses ar related when they “are based ton the same criminal conductor episode or arse out ofa course of eiminal conductor series of criminal episodes connected together or constituting pars of single scheme or plan.” Commonwealth v. Agulla, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 193, 199 (2010) (desided in context of joiner), quoting Mass, R. Cem. P. 9 (@) (1). Here, Maria and Blzabeth’s deaths are sufficiently related in time, place, and form to show a common scheme. See Walker, 442 Mass, at 202; Helfan, 398 Mass. a 224-225. While Marci ime of death is uncertain, her deat occurred within days of Elizabeth's death, if not the same day, Further, dept the fit thet oth women ive in New Vor ate time, their ‘odes were discovered at oatons in Masschuses and Connecticut, approximately ity miles apart. Shorty afler Marcia and Elizabeth's deaths, the defendant independently went o their relatives and told hen that Marca and Blzaeth had moved to Austria and he would be joining thm, Marie an Eiabuth owover, wore leady ded The defndan inked Maria an Elzabetis dsapperancs a one event, when he desert them as sich nis own statements, A few wesks after hese statements the defendant moved to South Aftea. The defendants statements to the family are indicative ofthe defendants scheme and the admissible fo show scheme up until the pint the defendant went to South Aftca, at which point the scheme ended ‘The Commonwealth's proffered evidence of eommon scheme also supports the ‘Commonwealth's theory thatthe defendant speifically intended to ill Marcia and did o after deliberate premesitation, See Commonwealth v. Cordle, 404 Mass. 733, 741 (1989) (deseeibing defendants statements und actions after murders and holding “evidence of such a sate of mind hen coupled with other probabie inferences, may be sufficient to amass the quantum of proof necessary to prove guilt citations omitted, ‘The above-mentioned evidence i also relevant to establishing the killer's identity Admitting evidence thatthe defendant has previously committed a similar cme, to establish identity, may improperly intence the jury; therefor, itis “important that the Commonwealth > Tas evidence my ato be anil tosh the defendants cnsiounae of it. Subsequent samen he defn alleges mde 2000 ois wife Chay the hi over Geen mare, dd at have any igs oF ‘he, nd ats prs were deceased we ao admissible a eidenee of consciousness ofp os well is loge 2014 stems ote plc tht edi ac ow who Marea and Elza were 6 demonstrate that the prior events and circumstances of the crime charged have such similarities to be meaningfully distinctive” Commonwealth v. Brusgulis, 406 Mass. S01, $05 (1990). “There must be a uniqueness of technique, a distinctiveness, or particulary distinguishing pattem of conduct common tothe curent and former incidents fo warrant the admission of ‘evidence af prior had acts as tending to pve that the defendant was the persnn whn commited the crime cherged.” I. at $06, Factors to consider in adltion tothe similarity ofthe ciroumstances are the proximity in ime and place between the prior event and the erime charged, Marrero, 427 Mass. at 7, citing Brusulis, 406 Mass at $06 9.7 In ion tothe previously recited evidence, both women’s bodies were discovered near waste disposal areas-Marcia’s body near the cumping station atthe Tolland State campground and Elizabeth's body infront of¢ dumpster behind a strip mall. Both women had been shot in the head with a high caliber weapon, Nether women had any forms of identification on them Most compelling, the vitims were mother and daughter and had been living in New York at the time, ‘but their bodies were discovered away from ther state of residence. All ofthese factors indicate thatthe similarities between the murders ate so meaningtully distinctive that they could have been the product ofthe same mind. See Marrero, 427 Mass. at 71-72 “The defendant argues thatthe murders ae dissimilar and points othe difference in location between where the bodies were discovered, the way in which the women were shot, and ‘he way in which the perpetrator disposed the bodies. However, the defendant's argument and ‘case law he cites to suppor his position ignores the fact that the victims were mother and daughter, were living in New York at the time ofthe homicides, and were killed within days of ‘ech other, fot the same day. [. Admissibility of Intertwined Events “The prosecution [is] entitled to present as full picture as possible ofthe events surrounding the incident itself" Marrero, 427 Mass. AC 67, quoting Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 269-270 (1982). “Marcia and Elizaboth’s murdees, occuring 0 close together in time, nd the defendant's unprovoked statements accounting for their absence, are so inextricably linked that excluding evidence of Elizabeth's death would confuse the jury and impr the Commonwealth’ ability to present its case, See generally Commonwealth v. Marrero, 427 Mass. 65 (1998). Despite the fact, ‘hat identification of Mareia’s body was ultimately made possible by Marcia and Elizabeth's ‘amily investigating ther disappearance as one event-based on the defendant's statements-and (Ms. Tyree's investigation into the defendant's background based his statements to her of his lack cof any family ties, the defendant argues tht allowing ino evidence Elizabeth's murder will only ‘serve to confuse the jury. The Commonwealth's has at this stage demonstrated thatthe

    Você também pode gostar