Commonwealth v. Zagranski

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1990 · Evidence

408 Mass. 278 (1990)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceHearsaySearch warrantsOther-acts evidenceSpontaneous utteranceAbsent witness inferencePhotographic and physical evidenceprobable cause

Facts

The victim's body, bearing multiple gunshot wounds, was found in a storage space rented by the defendant, along with the defendant's shotgun and other personal items. Evidence supported a finding that the defendant shot the victim, loaded him into the trunk of a rented vehicle, and later placed the body in the storage unit. On appeal, the defendant challenged warrants to search the rented vehicle and storage area, the admission of evidence of a similar proposed scheme involving a Jamaican hotel owner, several hearsay statements by the victim, his wife's post-arrest statements, an absent witness instruction, and the admission of some clothing and photographs.

Issue

Whether the trial judge committed reversible error in admitting or allowing various categories of evidence and in instructing the jury on the absent witness inference. Also, whether the warrant to search the rented vehicle was supported by probable cause, thereby defeating the related challenge to the storage-space search.

Rule

A search warrant is supported by probable cause when the affidavits establish a fair probability that the place searched contains evidence of the crime. Victim state-of-mind hearsay is admissible only when it is relevant and the factfinder could find that the defendant was aware of that state of mind; statements of past events do not fall within that exception and such statements may not be used to prove the facts stated. A spontaneous utterance is admissible when made under the influence of an exciting event before time to contrive, and when it tends to qualify, characterize, or explain the underlying event that prompted the utterance. An absent witness instruction may be given only when there is evidence that the witness was available, favorably disposed or not hostile to the party, and would be expected to give testimony of distinct importance; otherwise the instruction is error.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a murder trial in Worcester, the prosecution offers testimony that two days before her death, Elena Ruiz told her sister, "I'm planning to meet Devon Pike at the credit union tomorrow to hand over the signed deed." There is no evidence Devon knew Elena had formed or expressed that plan. The prosecution says the statement shows Elena's intention and helps prove Devon arranged the meeting.

Should the statement be admitted under the state-of-mind exception for the purpose offered?

Explanation. The majority rule is that victim state-of-mind hearsay is admissible only if the victim's state of mind is relevant and the factfinder could find the defendant was aware of that state of mind. It also may not be used to prove the truth of the underlying fact asserted. Here, although Elena's statement expresses future intent, the prosecution is using it to show Devon arranged the meeting, and there is no evidence Devon was aware of her state of mind. That makes the statement inadmissible for the purpose offered. (Derived from Commonwealth v. Zagranski (1990).)