Commonwealth v. Brown, 474 Mass. 576

June 19–20, 2009: defendant, aged seventeen, fights with the victim over alleged thefts of money and marijuana at Marlborough-area locations.
The next day the three men travel in a Volvo to Callahan State Park where the victim is killed by two gunshots; the second shot was at close range while the victim was on his knees; gun used remains unrecovered.
Surveillance and on-scene evidence, including a bandana matching the defendant, place the trio at the park around the shooting; the victim sustains two gunshot wounds and blood evidence suggests the victim lived for minutes after the chest shot.
In jailhouse calls, the defendant admits presence at the killing and hints at others’ involvement; he also discusses what happened with a grandmother and girlfriend.
Gonzalez, the codefendant, provides a statement to police about their activities that day; the statement is admitted under the joint venture theory but later contested as testimonial and lacking proper foundation.
Two custodial interrogations of the defendant (June 21 and June 23, 2009) occur; Miranda warnings are given and waivers are found voluntary under totality of circumstances, with corroborating testimony about the defendant’s youth and demeanor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cunneen extreme atrocity elements were proven	Commonwealth argues Cunneen factors shown via defendant's indifference to suffering and planned restraint.	Brown contends Cunneen factors not established beyond reasonable doubt.	No reversible error; Cunneen factors supported.
Whether the June 21 and June 23 statements were voluntary	Commonwealth maintains voluntariness under totality of circumstances and proper Miranda waivers.	Brown asserts custodial interrogation undermines voluntariness of waiver.	Waivers and statements voluntary; no suppression error.
Admissibility of Gonzalez's joint venture statement	Statement supports joint venture evidence; admissible as such.	Statement not admissible under joint venture; could be testimonial and violate confrontation.	Gonzalez statement not admissible under joint venture; admissibility upheld on nonhearsay/alternative theory with limiting issues adequately addressed.
Admission of jailhouse telephone calls	Calls show consciousness of guilt and corroborate alibi issues; probative value outweighs prejudice.	Potential juror confusion and prejudice from alibi implication.	Calls properly balanced; admissible with redactions; not error.
Jury instructions regarding youth and Cunneen/extreme atrocity	No error in instructions; youth appropriately considered under law.	Should have instructed on diminished capacity based on youth.	Instructions proper; no error; Cunneen unanimity issue rejected.

Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216 (Mass. 1983) (Cunneen factors for extreme atrocity/cruelty analyzed)
Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for determining sufficiency of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195 (Mass. 2005) (indifference to victim's suffering supported Cunneen factor)
Commonwealth v. Linton, 456 Mass. 534 (Mass. 2010) (Cunneen factors may be proven by inferences)
Commonwealth v. Mazariego, 474 Mass. 42 (Mass. 2016) (voluntariness of statements under totality of circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Silanskas, 433 Mass. 678 (Mass. 2001) (joint venture alibi consideration and hearsay)
Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (Mass. 2011) (use of joint venture statements as nonhearsay foundation)
Commonwealth v. Okoro, 471 Mass. 51 (Mass. 2015) (limits on youth-based diminished capacity argument)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 471 Mass. 161 (Mass. 2015) (no obligation to provide parent during police interview for those 17+)
Commonwealth v. Cruz, 373 Mass. 676 (Mass. 1977) (totality of the circumstances standard for voluntariness)
Commonwealth v. Morganti, 455 Mass. 388 (Mass. 2009) (gatekeeping/unanimity standards for Cunneen instructions)
Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502 (Mass. 1993) (plenary review vs. standard appeal framework for severe sentences)