Commonwealth v. Murphy

Summary

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed convictions for two counts of murder in the first degree and armed assault in a dwelling, along with the denial of a motion for a new trial. The court rejected challenges concerning Miranda custody and waiver, loss of potentially exculpatory evidence, prosecutorial closing argument, jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and conflicts of interest. It affirmed the convictions and the order denying a new trial and declined to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Holdings

1. The defendant was not in custody during the initial 12:15 to 12:45 p.m. interview, so Miranda warnings were not required before that questioning.
2. The defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights, and his statements made before the suppressed 11 p.m. statements were voluntary.
3. The trial judge properly denied the motion to exclude the footwear-impression evidence because the defendant failed to establish a reasonable possibility that the lost impression would have produced favorable, material evidence.
4. Armed assault in a dwelling with intent to commit a felony could serve as the predicate felony for felony murder because the assaults were independent of the fatal stabbings.
5. The alibi instruction, considered as a whole, did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defendant.
6. The erroneous instruction permitting second-prong malice to support deliberately premeditated murder did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
7. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to obtain additional neurological testing or pursue a mental-health defense.
8. The defendant did not establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's prior representation of a witness, alleged denial of the right to testify, or failure to object to the challenged instructions.
9. The trial judge properly denied the defendant's motions for funds for additional mental-health experts because he failed to show a likelihood that the expenditure would produce a meritorious new-trial ground.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant was in custody during the pre-Miranda questioning at the police station.
2. Whether the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and whether his post-warning statements were voluntary.
3. Whether the Commonwealth's negligent loss of a potentially exculpatory footwear impression required exclusion of the remaining footwear-impression evidence.
4. Whether the prosecutor's reference to the killings as being committed in cold blood created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.
5. Whether the jury instructions improperly permitted armed assault in a dwelling to serve as the predicate felony for felony murder, shifted the burden regarding alibi, or improperly defined the second prong of malice.
6. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue additional mental-health testing, for an alleged conflict of interest, for allegedly preventing the defendant from testifying, or for failing to object to jury instructions.
7. Whether the trial judge abused her discretion by declining to hold a broader evidentiary hearing on the new-trial claims.
8. Whether the defendant was entitled to public funds for additional mental-health experts in connection with his motion for a new trial.
9. Whether relief should be granted under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Disposition

affirmed