Court tosses gun charges against man convicted of killing a co-worker at a Roslindale garage, but leaves manslaughter conviction in place

The Massachusetts Appeals Court today dismissed a man's gun convictions related to the way he killed a co-worker at a Roslindale garage in 2019 because prosecutors failed to prove he didn't have a gun license, but upheld his conviction for manslaughter, which means he will remain behind bars.

A Suffolk Superior Court Jury had convicted Richard Lugo of manslaughter for the death of Pascual Casiano, following an argument at One Stop Shop Auto Repair & Sales, 581 American Legion Highway in Roslindale on Oct. 31, 2019. Prosecutors had asked for a sentence of first-degree murder.

Judge Janet Sanders, who presided over the case, sentenced Lugo to 10 to 12 years in state prison.

The jury also convicted Lugo of illegal possession of a firearm and illegal possession of a loaded firearm, for which Sanders sentenced him to 18 months and a day, to run concurrently with the manslaughter sentence.

In its ruling today, the appeals court agreed with Lugo's attorney that the gun convictions should be overturned because of US Supreme Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rulings that require prosecutors to prove that a gun at question in a trial was not owned legally, but that Lugo's prosecutor did not present evidence he did not have a Massachusetts license for the gun he used.

The court acknowledged that in 2020, during Lugo's trial, this was not a requirement, because the Supreme Court and SJC rulings came down two and three years later, but said that the SJC said the new requirement would apply not only to new cases, but to any cases that were under appeal at the time, and by the time it released its ruling, Lugo's attorney had appealed his verdict.

Here, it is undisputed, and understandably so, that the judge did not instruct on an element of the firearm offenses that did not exist at the time of trial. On our review of the record, we could find no direct evidence that was introduced to support any claim that the defendant did not have the necessary license.

The court rejected arguments by Lugo's attorney to throw out his manslaughter verdict, however.

The court said prosecutors ruled out one potential juror not because he was Black or had a mental illness - controlled by medication - but because his brother was in federal prison on gun charges and he would be asked to help reach a verdict in a case that hinged on gun charges.

And the court said that while it was wrong of the prosecutor in the case to raise the issue of Lugo's "silence" after the killing - he did not talk to police - she did not emphasize the issue to the point where it might convince jurors to ignore his Fifth Amendment rights. And, the court continued, there was plenty of legitimate evidence, including things Lugo said and did, to prove he knew what he'd done was wrong, that he had "consciousness of guilt:"

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the defendant fled his long-term Massachusetts home and went to New York. See Commonwealth v. Martin, 467 Mass. 291, 297, 309-310 (2014) (defendant's flight from Massachusetts to Virginia demonstrated consciousness of guilt). He left behind his belongings; his cell phone (which he always carried); his job; and several family members, including five of his six children. In New York, he altered his appearance by changing the distinctive hair style he had been wearing for fifteen years. See Commonwealth v. Carrion, 407 Mass. 263, 277 (1990) (evidence that defendant altered his appearance after murder admissible to show consciousness of guilt). Also, rather than purchasing a new cell phone under his own name when he arrived in New York, the defendant used his son's phone. All these matters provided the jury with exceptionally strong evidence of consciousness of guilt that overwhelmed or rendered merely cumulative the improperly admitted evidence of the defendant's prearrest silence.