## Facts

- The Desai family owned two hotels in West Springfield, Massachusetts, and lived in an apartment connected to the Rodeway Inn office.
- On April 18, 2003, Ajay Desai was working in the office when a bank bag containing the day’s receipts and about $450 was delivered and placed on stairs leading to upstairs bedrooms.
- Azam Rabbani, a family friend, arrived for an overnight shift and sat with Ajay in the living room.
- Ajay observed two men entering the office area via a security monitor and saw them jump over the front desk.
- One intruder entered the living room, held a gun to Rabbani’s neck, forced him to the floor, and similarly forced Ajay to the floor while instructing Ajay not to look at him.
- The intruders spoke English with Spanish accents, demanded money, and asked about a safe; Ajay stated he would give them what they wanted.
- During the intrusion, Jaya Desai was fatally shot.
- Investigators recovered latent fingerprints and a shoe print from the scene; at trial, experts linked the fingerprints to Jesus Gambora and offered testimony relating the shoe print to a type of shoe associated with him.
- A jury convicted Gambora of first-degree murder (deliberate premeditation and felony-murder theories), firearm and ammunition offenses, and eleven armed robberies; the judge dismissed seven armed-robbery counts as duplicative before sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether expert testimony “individualizing” two latent fingerprints to the defendant was inadmissible as unreliable under Daubert-type reliability principles.
2. Whether expert shoe-print testimony was improperly admitted on reliability grounds.
3. Whether the trial judge erred in excusing a juror for cause.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support first-degree murder on a theory of deliberate premeditation.
5. Whether the indictment provided constitutionally adequate notice that the prosecution would proceed on a felony-murder theory.
6. Whether extraordinary relief should be granted under G.L. c. 278, § 33E to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed all convictions and declined to grant relief under G.L. c. 278, § 33E.
- The court held that fingerprint identification testimony was properly admitted; criticisms about subjectivity, certainty, and potential error went to weight, not admissibility, and could be tested by cross-examination.
- The court held that shoe-print testimony was properly admitted based on the examiner’s training and experience and the opportunity for adversarial testing.
- The court found no abuse of discretion in excusing a juror for cause, deferring to the trial judge’s assessment of impartiality.
- The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, permitted a rational jury to find deliberate premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court held that the murder indictment, together with the related armed-robbery charges and pretrial information, gave adequate notice of a felony-murder theory.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts, longstanding forensic comparison disciplines such as latent fingerprint identification may be admitted where examiners use accepted methods; methodological criticisms typically affect the evidentiary weight rather than categorical admissibility.
- Reliability challenges to expert forensic testimony are commonly addressed through the adversary process, including cross-examination and competing expert testimony, when the foundational methodology and qualifications are shown.
- Trial judges have substantial discretion to excuse jurors for cause based on impartiality determinations, and appellate courts give deference to those determinations.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational factfinder could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt, including deliberate premeditation inferred from the circumstances.
- A first-degree murder indictment can support alternative theories, including felony-murder, when the defendant receives constitutionally adequate notice of the predicate felonies through charging instruments and case disclosures.
- Under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, the Supreme Judicial Court independently reviews first-degree murder convictions but grants relief only when warranted by the whole record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Gambora’s first-degree murder and related convictions, ruling that the challenged fingerprint and shoe-print expert testimony was admissible, the juror excusal was within the judge’s discretion, the evidence supported deliberate premeditation, the charging materials adequately notified the defendant of felony-murder, and no extraordinary relief was justified under § 33E.


Commonwealth v. Gambora, 457 Mass. 715, 933 N.E.2d 50 (Mass. 2010)