Suffolk County appellate prosecutors have prevailed at the Supreme Judicial Court in three recent challenges to first-degree murder convictions, District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

“Boston Police and Suffolk prosecutors alike know a homicide case doesn’t end with an arrest, an indictment, or even a conviction,” Conley said. “It ends with an argument before the state’s highest court. Our Appeals Division has earned its reputation for excellence in legal research and oral presentation of every single case.”

The recent string of upheld convictions includes:

1.  The 2008 conviction of JOVON ADAMS (D.O.B. 7/22/84) of Dorchester for the May 15, 2007, fatal shooting of 20-year-old Cordelro Andrade amid tensions caused by a previous brawl at the Franklin Field Housing Development;
2. The 2007 conviction of TU TRINH (D.O.B. 8/15/56) of Dorchester for the Jan. 23, 2001, fatal shooting of 47-year-old Sinh Tran during a botched poker debt collection on Kimball Street; and
3. The 2005 conviction of SHAWN JENKINS (D.O.B. 6/8/78) of Fall River for the 2001 fatal shooting of his cousin, Stephen Jenkins, on Juliette Street after the victim began to undercut the defendant’s crack cocaine business.

Adams challenged his conviction on the grounds that his younger brother’s pre-trial interviews identifying Adams as one of two gunmen at the scene should not have been played for the jury.

The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, citing a 2007 decision by the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

“The court held that extrajudicial statements of identification that are not part of an identification procedure are admissible for substantive purposes, even in the absence of any in-court identification, where they have been made in ‘nonsuggestive’ circumstances and closer in time to the offense,” Justice Francis X. Spina wrote on Jan. 28.

Trinh argued that the trial judge should not have instructed the jury on consciousness of guilt, and that the instruction itself – given in light of the defendant’s four-year flight from the country in the aftermath of Tran’s murder – was flawed.

“We agree with the judge that the ‘temporal connection’ between that crime and evidence suggesting that the defendant abandoned his residence amply warranted giving the consciousness of guilt instruction,” Justice Margot Botsford wrote on Jan. 31.

The court also addressed an error in which the judge mistakenly said jurors had heard evidence of the defendant’s state of knowledge at the time of his flight.

“There was no evidence to the effect that the defendant discovered he was about to be arrested and therefore fled,” Botsford wrote. “Nevertheless, the judge’s error does not amount to reversible error. It occurred in the first part of a lengthy jury instruction on consciousness of guilt that was otherwise proper …. Moreover, before giving the instruction on consciousness of guilt, the judge in her general charge instructed the jury that ‘[i]f your memory of the testimony differs from the attorneys’ or mine, it’s your collective recollection that controls when you go back to deliberate.’”

Finally, Jenkins appealed his conviction by saying, among other arguments, that portions of testimony by two prosecution witnesses were hearsay and should not have been admitted at trial.

The first portion came from the victim’s girlfriend, who was present when Jenkins and others confronted the victim about stealing Jenkins’ customers. In the course of that confrontation, Jenkins produced a gun and one of his associates said, “You don’t want to do this here.”

“The testimony was not offered for the truth of its contents and thus was not hearsay,” Justice Judith Cowin wrote on Feb. 4 for the high court. “The statement was a part of the event described by the witness … It was not offered to prove a fact …. Moreover, the testimony was merely cumulative of other testimony.”

The second portion of testimony came from a prosecution witness recounting statements from the defendant’s girlfriend, who was travelling with the witness and the defendant in a minivan about a week before the murder.

“Angry with the victim for taking his drug business, the defendant stated, ‘[T]his wasn’t a fucking game and … he was going to erase that dude,’” Cowin wrote, noting that the defendant’s girlfriend then said, “Stephen [the victim] don’t fuckin’ know Shaun, Shaun will kill his ass,” but that the witness could not remember if Jenkins said anything in response.

The high court ruled that admitting this statement was in error, not qualifying as an adoptive admission, or one “made in the presence of the defendant to which the defendant’s response … objectively denotes the defendant’s acceptance of the statement,” because the witness could not recall what, if anything, Jenkins offered in response to the girlfriend’s statement.

“The error in admitting the statement, however, was not prejudicial,” Cowin wrote, because the defendant himself said he was going to “‘erase that dude,’” making the statement “merely cumulative.”

Assistant District Attorney Elisabeth Kosterlitz argued against Adams’ appeal. The defendant was represented by attorney John Cunha, Jr. Former Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Dennis Collins tried the underlying case.

Assistant District Attorney Zachary Hillman defended Trinh’s conviction. The defendant was represented by attorney David Mirsky. Assistant District Attorney Mark Lee was the trial prosecutor.

Assistant District Attorney Helle Sachse presented the Commonwealth’s case at Jenkins’ appeal. The defendant was represented by attorney Stewart Graham, Jr. Former prosecutor Timothy Bradl tried the case to a conviction.