125 N.E.3d 22
Mass.2019Background
- Tiffany Durfee was found murdered with her throat cut on March 13, 2013; two young children were unharmed and a flat-screen TV was missing.
- Phone records and witness accounts connected Jeremy Amaral to the victim's apartment; he voluntarily went to the police station March 14 and gave multiple interviews before invoking counsel at the third interview and being arrested.
- Amaral and a friend, Michael Garcia, initially gave shifting statements; Garcia later admitted lying about co‑presence and implicated Amaral in transporting a blood‑stained TV that tested positive for blood.
- Forensic evidence: Amaral’s hand swabs were blood‑positive; bloody clothing and shoes with DNA consistent with the victim were recovered; shoe impressions matched bloody prints at the scene.
- Amaral was convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation, extreme atrocity/cruelty, and felony‑murder with armed robbery predicate) and of misleading police; he appealed denial of suppression, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and denial of an evidentiary hearing on a new‑trial motion.
- The trial judge denied suppression (no custodial interrogation; statements voluntary), excluded an unidentified third‑party hearsay remark, declined a sua sponte humane‑practice and joint‑venture instruction, and denied a new‑trial hearing; the SJC affirmed and declined §33E relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Amaral’s statements (Miranda/custody) | Statements admissible because interrogation was noncustodial under controlling factors | Amaral argues he was in custody and needed Miranda warnings before interrogation | Court held interview noncustodial (voluntary appearance, cordial interview, free to leave) and affirmed admissibility |
| Voluntariness of statements | Commonwealth: totality showed Amaral’s will not overborne; statements voluntary | Amaral argued intoxication and coercion rendered statements involuntary | Court found statements voluntary (alert, coherent, influenced interview, participated in controlled buy) |
| Exclusion of third‑party hearsay under doctrine of verbal completeness | Defense: background voice said, “No, it’s not stolen; it’s my TV,” necessary to show owner’s consent | Commonwealth: hearsay, not same-speaker, not shown part of same conversation or necessary to understand proffered testimony | Court affirmed exclusion: defendant failed to show same conversation/necessity; foundational hearsay concerns justified exclusion |
| Humane practice & joint‑venture jury instructions | Amaral: judge should have given humane practice instruction sua sponte and fuller joint‑venture instruction | Commonwealth: voluntariness not a live issue at trial; no evidence of joint venture; given instructions sufficiently covered intent and presence | Court held no error: defense did not make voluntariness a live issue; no evidentiary basis for joint‑venture instruction and omission would not aid defendant |
| Motion for new trial — failure to disclose recorded child interview | Amaral: taped interview of victim’s son was withheld and could have affected trial strategy/prejudice | Commonwealth/trial judge: interview inconsistent, unreliable, description did not match Amaral, and admissible impact would have been minimal | Court held no evidentiary hearing required; judge did not abuse discretion; no substantial prejudice shown |
| §33E review (extraordinary relief) | Amaral sought relief on multiple grounds (voir dire on disability, counsel performance, evidentiary rulings) | Commonwealth: trial conduct and rulings did not show miscarriage of justice | Court denied §33E relief after full review; convictions and denial of new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Molina, 467 Mass. 65 (standard of review on suppression)
- Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199 (voluntariness factors and review)
- Commonwealth v. Girouard, 436 Mass. 657 (burden to show custody for Miranda)
- Commonwealth v. Cawthron, 479 Mass. 612 (custodial interrogation analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (custody/custodial factors)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (doctrine of verbal completeness)
- Commonwealth v. Aviles, 461 Mass. 60 (verbal completeness/contextual statements)
- Commonwealth v. Alicea, 376 Mass. 506 (when humane‑practice instruction required)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (joint venture instruction guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Denis, 442 Mass. 617 (standard for granting evidentiary hearing on new‑trial motion)
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 461 Mass. 10 (prejudice inquiry for new evidence)