125 N.E.3d 22
Mass.2019Background
- On March 13, 2013 Tiffany Durfee was found murdered; a flat-screen TV was missing and two young children were unharmed. Investigators linked calls between the victim and Jeremy Amaral's cell phone overnight.
- Amaral and Michael Garcia initially gave police similar accounts claiming they left another person, "David," alone with the victim; Garcia later recanted elements of that story.
- Amaral voluntarily went to the police station with Garcia on March 14, was interviewed multiple times (left once to assist with a controlled buy), and ultimately invoked his right to counsel near the third interview when officers learned of blood on a sold TV.
- Physical evidence: the recovered TV and clothing/shoes had bloodstains; DNA testing did not exclude the victim and, in mixed samples, did not exclude Amaral; shoe soles matched blood impressions in the apartment. Amaral’s hands tested positive for blood.
- At trial Amaral claimed Garcia killed the victim and that Amaral had fabricated earlier statements to protect Garcia; Amaral was convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation, extreme atrocity/cruelty, and felony‑murder with armed robbery) and of misleading police.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: Miranda/custodial interrogation | Commonwealth: interviews were non‑custodial; Miranda not required; statements voluntary | Amaral: was effectively in custody, required Miranda; statements involuntary (drug use) | Court: Not custodial under Groome factors; statements voluntary under totality of circumstances — suppression denied |
| Suppression: voluntariness (due process) | Commonwealth: Amaral coherent, lucid, influenced interview, participated voluntarily | Amaral: heroin use impaired voluntariness; statements coerced | Court: voluntariness proven beyond reasonable doubt (defendant coherent, initiated and controlled parts of interview) |
| Exclusion of hearsay (verbal completeness) | Commonwealth: proffered third‑party remark lacked foundation and was not part of same conversation | Amaral: third‑party said "No, it's not stolen; it's my TV," necessary to show owner consent and prevent misleading inference from mother’s testimony | Court: proffer failed the three Crayton elements (uncertain same conversation; not necessary to understand admitted portion); exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Jury instructions: humane practice and joint venture | Commonwealth: existing instructions adequately covered elements and intent | Amaral: judge should have given humane practice sua sponte and a joint venture instruction | Court: humane practice not required because voluntariness was not a live issue at trial and defense expressly declined it; no joint venture instruction because no supporting evidence and requested instruction not pursued at charge conference |
| Motion for new trial / Brady claim (child interview) | Amaral: Commonwealth withheld recorded interview of victim’s young son which might be exculpatory; hearing required | Commonwealth: interview showed inconsistent/contradictory statements and would not likely change verdict | Held: trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying hearing; nondisclosure (or counsel performance) did not establish substantial prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (court lists factors for custodial inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Jung, 420 Mass. 675 (Miranda custodial interrogation principle)
- Commonwealth v. Crayton, 470 Mass. 228 (doctrine of verbal completeness — three‑part test)
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (joint venture instruction guidance)
- Commonwealth v. Denis, 442 Mass. 617 (standard for denying evidentiary hearing on new‑trial motion)
- Commonwealth v. Gallett, 481 Mass. 662 (humane practice instruction requirement when voluntariness is a live issue)
- Commonwealth v. Lykus, 451 Mass. 310 (assessment of prejudice from nondisclosed evidence against weight of other evidence)