Commonwealth v. Colon
121 N.E.3d 1157
| Mass. | 2019Background
- Victim was found beaten and stabbed to death near railroad tracks in Dudley in July 2005; defendant (José Colón) was later identified by witnesses and convicted of first‑degree murder in 2013.
- Witnesses testified defendant admitted killing the victim and clothing from defendant's residence tested positive for the victim's blood; a large rock with blood was recovered at the scene.
- Pretrial suppression hearings: court suppressed defendant's custodial statements for inadequate Spanish Miranda warnings but denied suppression of physical evidence seized after a consent search and subsequent warrant search.
- During jury deliberations a juror (No. 15) expressed fear of gang retribution and that the defendant had heard her name; she was excused, another juror (No. 1) was later excused, and the judge individually voir dired remaining jurors at sidebar.
- Defendant was present at sidebar but was not provided Spanish translation (he could see but not hear); defense counsel agreed to limit what he would tell defendant about juror fears.
- Defendant appealed, raising errors as to juror exposure to extraneous influence, partial exclusion due to lack of interpreter, failure to conduct individual voir dire on ethnic bias, consent to search, admission of out‑of‑court statements, ineffective assistance, and asked for §33E relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraneous influence from juror talk about gangs during deliberations | Commonwealth: judge appropriately investigated, excused biased jurors, individually voir dired remaining jurors, and kept impartial jurors | Colón: extraneous gang‑related talk created actual bias; entire jury should have been dismissed | Court: no abuse of discretion—judge excused biased jurors, conducted individual voir dire, and reasonably found remaining jurors impartial |
| Defendant's partial exclusion (no interpreter) during voir dire of deliberating jurors | Commonwealth: sidebar voir dire in open court preserves public trial right; interpreter not required at sidebar | Colón: denial of interpreter prevented his meaningful presence and violated right to be present | Court: excluding his ability to hear was error as to right to be present, but harmless—no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice given counsel's objection and available relief already sought |
| Request for mandatory individual voir dire on ethnic bias (Hispanic defendant, white victim) | Commonwealth: judge had discretion under then‑existing Massachusetts law to deny individualized oral questioning; written questionnaire sufficed | Colón: needed individualized questioning to uncover bias and protect fair jury | Court: announces new supervisory rule moving forward requiring individual voir dire on race/ethnicity when requested in murder/rape/child‑sexual‑offense cases with differing backgrounds, but applies prospectively; denial here was within judge's discretion under prior law |
| Voluntariness of consent to search (Spanish translation issues) | Commonwealth: consent need only be voluntary; translation sufficiently conveyed right to refuse; warrant affidavit independent | Colón: inadequate Spanish Miranda/translation rendered consent involuntary and tainted later warrant search | Court: motion judge’s voluntariness finding upheld under totality of circumstances; consent was voluntary and later warrant did not rely on the consented items |
| Admission of out‑of‑court statements in light of Bowden defense | Commonwealth: rebuttal evidence explaining police focus was admissible to counter Bowden defense; limiting instructions given | Colón: hearsay/double hearsay prejudicial | Court: admissible as rebuttal to Bowden theory; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; appropriate limiting instructions given |
| Ineffective assistance re: chain‑of‑custody challenge to jeans | Colón: counsel should have moved to suppress jeans for chain‑of‑custody errors | Commonwealth: prior motions raised related issues; defects affect weight not admissibility | Court: counsel not ineffective—additional motion unlikely to succeed; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warning requirements for custodial interrogation)
- Commonwealth v. Philbrook, 475 Mass. 20 (Mass. 2016) (handling extraneous influences and juror impartiality)
- Commonwealth v. Guisti, 434 Mass. 245 (Mass. 2001) (one partial juror violates right to impartial jury; extraneous matters defined)
- Commonwealth v. Kamara, 422 Mass. 614 (Mass. 1996) (excusal and individual voir dire of remaining jurors proper after juror introduced gang information)
- Commonwealth v. Dyer, 460 Mass. 728 (Mass. 2011) (defendant's right to be present at inquiries into juror bias)
- Rosales‑Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1981) (supervisory rule requiring individualized inquiry when defendant and victim are of different racial or ethnic groups)
- Commonwealth v. Young, 401 Mass. 390 (Mass. 1988) (requiring individual voir dire in interracial murder cases)
- Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502 (Mass. 1993) (reversal where defendant excluded from voir dire on juror fear)
- Commonwealth v. Avila, 454 Mass. 744 (Mass. 2009) (Bowden defense opens scope of rebuttal evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Bowden, 379 Mass. 472 (Mass. 1980) (defense based on failure of police investigation)