104 N.E.3d 651
Mass.2018Background
- On June 20, 2002, 16‑year‑old Antonio Fernandez and two companions confronted a group of teens in a Brookline park; a verbal spat ensued but no punches were thrown.
- Fernandez and his group began to leave; after riding ~45 feet, Fernandez stopped, said “Fuck that shit,” produced a handgun, cocked it, returned to the victim and shot him in the chest; the victim died.
- Fernandez did not dispute the shooting but asserted self‑defense at trial; a jury convicted him of first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation) and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Three days before trial defense counsel moved for funds and a continuance to obtain an adolescent brain‑development expert based on recent literature; the judge denied the request as belated and unsupported by defendant‑specific evidence.
- Fernandez also alleged the courtroom was closed during individual voir dire and sought reduction of the first‑degree murder verdict under G. L. c. 278, § 33E; he received mandatory life without parole but the Supreme Judicial Court remanded for resentencing consistent with Diatchenko.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Fernandez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for funds/continuance to obtain adolescent brain expert | Denial proper because request was made on eve of trial and lacked case‑specific evidence showing scans would be probative | Needed time/funds to obtain brain scans to show underdeveloped impulse control and negate specific intent for deliberate premeditation | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion: belated request, no defendant‑specific support, and judge properly balanced interests |
| Sufficiency of evidence of deliberate premeditation / § 33E reduction | Evidence (leaving scene, returning with gun, statement, cocking gun) supported brief reflection and premeditation | Killing was spontaneous, heat‑of‑the‑moment from a minor spat; defendant was a juvenile so verdict should be reduced | Conviction for first‑degree murder upheld; facts supported deliberate premeditation; § 33E reduction denied |
| Sixth Amendment public‑trial right re: individual voir dire in adjacent courtroom | Procedure was agreed to by defense counsel at pretrial; counsel and defendant were present and raised no contemporaneous objection | Closure of the courtroom during individual voir dire violated the right to a public trial | Claim not preserved / waived by counsel’s agreement and presence; no relief granted |
| Sentencing relief given defendant’s juvenile status | Life without parole was mandatory under statute at time of conviction | As a juvenile, defendant argues sentencing implications given advances in juvenile sentencing law | Conviction affirmed, but remanded for resentencing consistent with Diatchenko (removing categorical parole ineligibility) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (invalidating mandatory life without parole for juveniles) (constitutional rule regarding juvenile sentencing)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (prohibiting life without parole for juveniles in nonhomicide cases) (Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing principle)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (barred death penalty for juvenile offenders) (Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing principle)
- Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655 (Mass.) (holding that certain statutory parole bars for murder are inconsistent with state constitutional principles; remand for resentencing protocol)
- Commonwealth v. Okoro, 471 Mass. 51 (Mass.) (discussing admissibility of adolescent brain‑development testimony tailored to the particular defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Colleran, 452 Mass. 417 (Mass.) (enumerating factors to consider in assessing whether a deliberate‑premeditation conviction should be reduced)
- Commonwealth v. Chipman, 418 Mass. 262 (Mass.) (explaining that premeditation can form in seconds and focusing on the sequence of thought rather than duration)