Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant's first-degree murder conviction. The court held that a proposed defense witness properly invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege, autopsy photographs were properly admitted, an involuntary manslaughter instruction was not warranted, and no additional instruction was required concerning the use of consciousness-of-guilt evidence to infer premeditation. The court also declined relief under Massachusetts General Laws chapter 278, section 33E.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether allowing a potential defense witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination violated the defendant's right to present a defense
- Whether admitting autopsy photographs was an abuse of discretion
- Whether the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction on involuntary manslaughter
- Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct that consciousness of guilt evidence could not be used to infer premeditation
- Whether relief should be granted under G. L. c. 278, § 33E
Holdings
- The trial judge did not err in allowing the witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege, as the witness faced a real risk of incrimination from testifying about his mental capacity and potential bias.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting seven autopsy photographs, which were highly probative of the manner and cause of death.
- No error in declining to instruct on involuntary manslaughter, as no view of the evidence supported anything less than a plain and strong likelihood of death.
- No error where judge gave correct instructions on consciousness of guilt and deliberate premeditation; no further limiting instruction required.
Key quotations
“One of the limitations on a defendant's right to call a witness includes the witness's proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination” (838-839)
“A witness may refuse to testify unless it is "perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such tendency" to incriminate” (839)
“Evidence of consciousness of guilt "is rarely relevant to the issue of premeditation."” (844)
Factual background
The victim was a nursing student who had previously dated the defendant. After their breakup, the defendant expressed hatred and threats toward her. On the night of her disappearance, the victim left work and never arrived at her boyfriend's apartment. The defendant had stolen her car earlier and had told his new girlfriend about a plan involving others abducting the victim. The defendant later confessed to police that the victim fell from a bridge during an argument. Months later, the victim's body was found with duct tape on her eyes, mouth, hands, and thighs, and a fingerprint matching the defendant's was found on the tape.
Procedural history
Defendant convicted of murder in the first degree on theory of deliberate premeditation. Appeal raised multiple claims of trial error and request for relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.