Commonwealth v. Hart

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for first-degree murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and armed assault with intent to murder. The court held that the prosecutor properly impeached the defendant’s alibi witnesses with their prior silence after establishing three foundational requirements, and abolished the fourth requirement concerning whether the defense had asked the witnesses not to speak with police. The court also rejected challenges to the admission of recorded jailhouse telephone calls and found no basis for relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. A prosecutor may impeach an exculpatory defense witness with the witness's failure to provide the information to law enforcement after establishing that the witness knew of the pending charges and understood that the information was exculpatory, had reason to make the information available, and was familiar with the means of reporting it. The prosecutor need not establish that the defendant or defense counsel did not ask the witness to remain silent.
2. A subpoena requiring a third party to produce records before trial is invalid under Mass. R. Crim. P. 17 (a) (2) when it directs that the records be sent directly to the requesting party rather than delivered to the court, but suppression is not warranted absent prejudice.
3. An adult pretrial detainee's constitutional rights are not violated when jail officials provide recorded telephone calls in response to a subpoena if the detainee had notice that the calls were subject to monitoring and recording and the monitoring was justified by legitimate penological interests.
4. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise claims that the court has rejected, and any error in admitting the recorded calls was harmless in light of the totality and strength of the evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor improperly impeached the defendant's alibi witnesses with their failure to disclose exculpatory information to police because the fourth foundational requirement recognized in Commonwealth v. Brown had not been established.
2. Whether recorded jailhouse telephone conversations between the defendant and his sister were improperly obtained and admitted without prior judicial approval under Mass. R. Crim. P. 17 (a) (2), and whether their admission violated the defendant's constitutional privacy rights.
3. Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to admission of the recorded jailhouse telephone calls.
4. Whether relief should be granted under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Disposition

affirmed