## Facts

- A homicide victim was found in a Roxbury lot on May 2, 1987, with multiple stab wounds; the medical examiner testified that two heart wounds were fatal and the time of death was within 24 hours of discovery.
- Matthew Troila was indicted for murder in the first degree.
- Witnesses placed Troila with the victim on the night before the body was found.
- Margaret Wilson testified she drove Troila, the victim, and Troila’s brother to the later-discovery location; the three men left the car to look for drugs, and Troila returned without the victim.
- Wilson testified Troila said he killed the victim because the victim “made a pass” at him.
- Debra Miele testified that on the morning of May 2 Troila said, “I think I killed somebody last night.”
- The jury heard a recording of Troila’s police interrogation and other testimony about admissions.
- In the first trial, after deliberations began, a juror conducted an unauthorized view of the crime scene, formed an opinion about lighting/visibility, and reported it to other jurors.
- The trial judge questioned the situation, heard counsel, explored alternatives, and declared a mistrial due to tainted deliberations.
- Troila was retried and convicted of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether double jeopardy barred retrial after a mistrial declared due to juror misconduct involving an unauthorized crime-scene view shared during deliberations.
2. Whether the trial judge erred by excluding tape-recorded statements of Troila’s brother offered by the defense to contradict the police account and suggest another perpetrator.
3. Whether the evidence required an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on adequate provocation arising from an alleged nonviolent sexual advance.
4. Whether the judge was required to give a “mere presence” instruction where the case was not tried on a joint venture theory.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction.
- Retrial was not barred because the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity after juror misconduct tainted deliberations.
- The brother’s tape-recorded statements were properly excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
- The evidence did not warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction because adequate provocation was not shown.
- A “mere presence” instruction was not required because the prosecution proceeded on a principal-liability theory, not joint venture.

## Legal Principles

- A retrial following a mistrial declared over a defendant’s objection is permitted when manifest necessity justifies the mistrial and the judge considers alternatives after hearing counsel.
- Juror exposure to extraneous information bearing on a contested issue and communicated to other jurors can constitute juror taint supporting mistrial.
- Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are inadmissible absent a recognized hearsay exception; exclusion on hearsay grounds does not, by itself, violate the right to present a defense.
- A voluntary manslaughter instruction based on provocation is required only if the evidence would permit a reasonable finding of objectively adequate provocation; a nonviolent sexual advance, without more, is insufficient.
- A “mere presence” instruction is generally associated with joint venture concerns and is not required when the case is tried solely on the theory that the defendant was the principal actor.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Troila’s first-degree murder conviction, holding that the mistrial caused by juror misconduct created manifest necessity permitting retrial, that the excluded recordings were inadmissible hearsay, and that the evidence did not justify instructions on voluntary manslaughter or mere presence.


Commonwealth v. Troila, 410 Mass. 203, 571 N.E.2d 391 (Mass. 1991)