Commonwealth v. Adams

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Richard Adams’s convictions for arson and two counts of murder in the first degree. The court held that, although the prosecution used Adams’s postarrest silence and related conduct in responding to his lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense, the unobjected-to evidence did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice in the circumstances of the trial. The court also rejected claims involving racial or ethnic prejudice, admission of prior violent conduct, prosecutorial closing argument, and relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. Although the Commonwealth's use of postarrest silence and related conduct to rebut Adams's lack-of-criminal-responsibility defense would ordinarily be impermissible, the unobjected-to evidence did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice under the circumstances of this case.
2. There was no error in the prosecutor's use of evidence concerning Adams's postarrest telephone conversations with counsel because the defense first raised and substantively developed that evidence as part of its trial strategy.
3. The prosecutor did not improperly attack Adams's character or appeal to racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice, and the challenged evidence and questioning were not unfairly prejudicial in context.
4. The trial judge did not commit palpable error by admitting evidence of Adams's prior violence or threatened violence toward his wife because the evidence was relevant to his state of mind and to the psychiatric experts' evaluations of criminal responsibility, not merely to prove propensity or bad character.
5. The prosecutor's closing argument was not improper because, considered as a whole, the reference to the jury's 'job' directed the jury to evaluate the evidence and apply the law rather than suggesting that it had a duty to convict.
6. The court declined to exercise its authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the murder verdicts or order a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecution's use of Adams's postarrest silence and conduct after receiving Miranda warnings, including his refusal to answer questions and requests for medical treatment, violated due process or created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice when used to rebut his insanity defense.
2. Whether the prosecution improperly used evidence of Adams's postarrest request for counsel to imply guilt.
3. Whether the prosecution improperly attacked Adams's character or appealed to racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice.
4. Whether evidence of Adams's prior violence or threatened violence toward his wife was inadmissible propensity evidence or was properly admitted as relevant to state of mind and the experts' evaluations of criminal responsibility.
5. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument improperly suggested that the jury had a duty to convict by referring to its 'job.'
6. Whether the court should exercise its authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the murder verdicts or order a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed