Charlestown Man Convicted of 1994 Murder Denied New Trial

A man who fatally shot another man over a $50 debt more than 20 years ago will not get a new trial, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said Wednesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Shawn Fritz was the recipient of a fair trail, finding no reason to overturn a jury’s 1996 conviction, which deemed him guilty of shooting Albert Titcomb III in the head at a Charlestown housing complex in 1994.

Fritz, who was 22 at the time of the murder, was sentenced to prison in 1996 after being found guilty of first-degree murder.

Fritz’s attorney, Rosmary Scapicchio, argued that testimony of certain witnesses was erroneously admitted at trial. Scapicchio argued that his rights were violated when the Superior Court trial judge allowed testimony of a witness who Fritz claims was acting as a government informant. Fritz says the supposed informant purposefully elicited statements from him.

According to the DA’s office, the witness observed Fritz, Titcomb, and others enter the Charlestown building where Titcomb was found shot to death. The justices found that no evidence presented indicated that the witness had a cooperative relationship with the government at the time Fritz made those statements.

The justices also pointed out that testimony placing Fritz at the scene of the murder was cumulative of other evidence, including Fritz’s own admission.

Additionally, Fritz argued that he was due a new trial due to errors in the judge’s instruction to jurors, including the decision not to provide instructions regarding inadequacy of the police investigation. Ultimately, it was a claim the justices found meritless as well.

During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence and testimony that proved beyond doubt that Fritz, Titcomb, and other acquaintances were in the area of 17 Carney Street on the day of the murder. Inside, Fritz fired five times at Titcomb, striking him three times, over an unpaid $50 debt, according to the DA’s office.

Scapicchio was unable to convince the highest court that alleged errors in the trial had an affect on the guilty conviction.