Commonwealth v. Johnson

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder and related firearm and assault offenses. The court held that erroneous jury instructions concerning the intent required for deliberately premeditated murder created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, reversed the first-degree murder conviction, and remanded that indictment for a new trial. It affirmed the remaining convictions and the denial of the motion for a new trial as to those convictions.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to submit deliberate premeditation to the jury because Johnson obtained and used a handgun, pursued the victims, and fired successive shots with a revolver that required a separate trigger pull or hammer cocking for each shot.
2. The instructions created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice because they included the second and third prongs of malice within the definition of deliberate premeditation and did not clearly require the specific intent to kill necessary for first-degree murder.
3. Counsel's failure to investigate and further cross-examine Ellison regarding his illnesses and medications did not constitute ineffective assistance because the other identification evidence was sufficiently strong and the defendant was not deprived of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defense.
4. Counsel was not ineffective in presenting both misidentification and mental-impairment defenses because the defendant understood and consented to the strategy, and the strategy was not manifestly unreasonable when undertaken.
5. Counsel's decision to request a voir dire of Bynum was not manifestly unreasonable because it sought to suppress damaging statements based on voluntariness and ultimately prevented the most damaging admission from reaching the jury.
6. Bynum's prior recorded testimony was properly admitted because the defendant had a reasonable opportunity and similar motivation to cross-examine her at the voir dire on the substantially same issue presented at trial: whether Johnson made the statements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a finding that Johnson deliberately premeditated Domiano's killing.
2. Whether the jury instructions improperly permitted conviction of deliberately premeditated murder based on the second or third prongs of malice rather than the specific intent to kill required for first-degree murder.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate Ellison's medical condition and medications, by presenting dual misidentification and mental-impairment defenses, or by requesting a voir dire of Bynum.
4. Whether Bynum's prior recorded voir dire testimony was admissible consistently with the defendant's confrontation rights.
5. Whether the convictions other than first-degree murder and the denial of the motion for a new trial should be affirmed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded