Commonwealth v. Castano, SJC 12090

Background

Defendant went to police after friends reported he had killed his girlfriend; police found the victim dead in their Peabody apartment from a gunshot to the head; two casings and two projectiles were recovered but the firearm was never found.
Defendant, not fluent in English, was Mirandized in Spanish multiple times, invoked his right to counsel, but later answered officers’ questions about where he had discarded the gun and accompanied police to attempt to locate it.
Motion judge admitted the post-invocation statements under the public-safety exception (Quarles), and the Commonwealth introduced testimony about an extensive, unsuccessful search for the gun.
At trial the Commonwealth presented physical and medical evidence (contact gunshot wound to the head with downward trajectory to couch armrest; abrasions, petechiae, bruises suggesting struggle/possible strangulation; glove with GSR), motive evidence (victim intended to end the relationship; suitcase and roommate release form), and defendant’s communications to a friend suggesting knowledge of the event.
Jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and unlawful possession of a firearm; defendant appealed raising suppression, hearsay/motive, expert qualification on trajectory, denial of new counsel, and request for 33E reduction.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Castano's Argument	Held
Suppression — admissibility of post-invocation statements about gun location (public-safety exception)	Quarles exception applies to elicit location of weapon and public safety; statements admissible	Post-invocation questioning not authorized by Edwards; Quarles should not extend to post-invocation or facts here lacked immediate danger	Court assumed error (without deciding Quarles scope) but found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt
Hearsay — victim's out-of-court statements that she planned to end relationship (state-of-mind/motive)	Admissible under state-of-mind exception because jury could infer defendant was aware of victim’s plan	Statements are hearsay and inadmissible absent proof defendant knew of them	Admissible: sufficient circumstantial evidence (suitcase, roommate release, arguments) to infer defendant knew; judge’s limiting instruction appropriate
Expert qualification — ballistics/trajectory opinion	Trooper’s experience sufficed; drawing a line among entrance, exit, and recovered bullet involves basic firearms familiarity	Trooper lacked specialized qualifications to opine on trajectory	No error: opinion was within common-sense/investigative foundation and trooper had substantial firearms experience
Right to counsel — denial of request for new counsel just before trial	Trial judge properly observed interactions and found relationship intact; denial within discretion	Breakdown of communication and ineffective assistance warranted new counsel	Denial not an abuse of discretion; judge found counsel professional and communication adequate
G. L. c. 278, § 33E — request to reduce conviction to second-degree murder	Commonwealth: evidence supports first-degree conviction	Defendant: equities/supporting reduction to second degree	Court declined to exercise § 33E power; ample evidence supported deliberate premeditation

Key Cases Cited

New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (public-safety exception to Miranda)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (post-invocation custodial interrogation rule)
Commonwealth v. Dagraca, 447 Mass. 546 (harmless constitutional error review framework)
Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676 (tainted evidence core analysis in harmless-error review)
Commonwealth v. Qualls, 425 Mass. 163 (state-of-mind exception to hearsay in homicide/motive context)
Commonwealth v. Franklin, 465 Mass. 895 (inference of defendant’s awareness of victim’s state of mind)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (gatekeeping standard for expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 (application of Daubert in Massachusetts)