Commonwealth v. Cruzado, 103 N.E.3d 732

On Nov. 26, 2010 Frederick Allen III was found dead from strangulation and blunt-force head trauma in his Chelsea apartment; Mario Cruzado was convicted of first‑degree murder.
The victim had spent time the day before Thanksgiving with Cruzado and Jaime Hernandez; Hernandez left after an argument about a cell phone and did not return.
Eleven days later Hernandez told police Cruzado had made incriminating statements implying involvement in the victim's death; a troopers’ interview of Cruzado was recorded.
Hilda Matiaz (a former girlfriend of Cruzado) told police Cruzado described an encounter in which an African‑American man allegedly touched Cruzado in a sexual way and Cruzado grabbed him and left.
Police found Cruzado asleep in a stairwell 13 days after the killing with a cell phone nearby; Cruzado gave inconsistent statements about the phone; police seized the phone and obtained a warrant to search it ten days later.
Cruzado appealed, challenging admission of parts of the recorded interview (including a racial slur), certain testimony about the cell‑phone argument, the exclusion of questioning about Matiaz being a drug dealer, defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress the phone, and asked for relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Cruzado's Argument	Held
Admissibility of recorded interview denials and racial slur	Interview statements were admissible; denials were not accusations and the slur showed animus/motive	Portions (denials and slur) were inadmissible or unduly prejudicial	Denials admissible (not accusations); slur admissible to show racial animus/motive; judge did not abuse discretion
Testimony about Hernandez–victim argument (cell‑phone dispute)	Testimony not offered for truth but to explain Hernandez's leaving and absence	Testimony was hearsay and should be excluded	Not hearsay; admission proper with limiting instruction given
Cross‑examination of Matiaz re: being a drug dealer	Not necessary; no evidentiary support for such questioning	Excluding this line of questioning prevented presenting a theory that victim sought drugs from Matiaz	Exclusion proper: questioning speculative and lacked evidentiary basis
Failure to move to suppress cellphone and its contents (ineffective assistance)	Seizure and ten‑day retention were reasonable: probable cause and exigent circumstances; motion would fail	Counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress; seizure lacked probable cause and delay was unreasonable	No ineffective assistance: police had probable cause and exigent circumstances; ten‑day delay reasonable under facts; suppression motion would not have succeeded

Commonwealth v. Spencer, 465 Mass. 32 (discussing admissibility of party admissions and related limits)
Commonwealth v. Womack, 457 Mass. 268 (distinguishing denials of accusations from other statements)
Commonwealth v. Bishop, 461 Mass. 586 (racial animus evidence admissible to show motive)
Commonwealth v. Kaupp, 453 Mass. 102 (cellphone data risk and reasonable delay for warrant)
Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (U.S.) (discussing risks to data on cellphones)
Commonwealth v. White, 475 Mass. 583 (analyzing reasonableness of delay between seizure and warrant)
Commonwealth v. Pierce, 419 Mass. 28 (provocation instruction analysis)