493 Mass. 130
Mass.2023Background
- October 5–6, 2016: defendant Joshua Hart and Brittany Smith unlawfully entered the Orange home of Thomas Harty (95) and Joanna Fisher (77), stabbed and suffocated both, stole cards, cash, phone, and a car; Harty died immediately; Fisher died weeks later.
- Surveillance, fingerprints, footwear impression, rosary beads, and receipts tied Hart and Smith to the crimes; victims' car and items recovered; Hart and Smith fled and were arrested in Virginia on October 8, 2016.
- While in Virginia custody, Hart spoke in recorded interviews with Virginia officers (approx. 1 hour) and then with Massachusetts officers (approx. 2 hours) and made detailed written and oral admissions and a sketch of the house.
- Hart was convicted after jury trial of two counts of first‑degree murder (various theories), attempted murder, armed robbery, motor vehicle larceny, and credit card fraud; sentenced to consecutive life terms without parole for each murder conviction.
- Hart appealed, raising challenges to suppression of his confessions (voluntariness), denial of a venue change for pretrial publicity, admission of Fisher’s out‑of‑court statements (hearsay and Confrontation Clause), and that life without parole for someone under 25 is cruel or unusual; he also sought review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Hart) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of confession | Confessions were voluntary; interrogation was noncoercive and recorded | Coerced: "now or never" tactic, minimization, appeal to religion, promise of leniency for girlfriend rendered confession involuntary | Court: confession voluntary under totality; recorded tone conversational, defendant initiated, knew Miranda, no improper promise or coercion |
| Change of venue for pretrial publicity | Publicity was not so pervasive or inflammatory to prevent fair trial; voir dire showed impartial jurors available | Pretrial local publicity created presumptive or actual prejudice requiring venue change | Court: no abuse of discretion; publicity not extensive/sensational and voir dire produced impartial jury; no presumptive or actual prejudice |
| Admissibility / Confrontation re: Fisher's out‑of‑court statements | Statements admissible as spontaneous utterance and nontestimonial (ongoing emergency) | Hearsay and testimonial; admission violated hearsay rules and Confrontation Clause because Fisher did not testify | Court: even if spontaneous‑utterance ruling erroneous, admission was harmless; statements were nontestimonial (ongoing emergency, informal, to caregiver), so no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Eighth/Declaration of Rights challenge to life without parole (age <25) | Life without parole permissible for adults ≥18; Diatchenko limited to juveniles under 18 | Given research on adolescent brain, sentence is cruel or unusual because defendant was under 25 at offense | Court: declines to extend Diatchenko; no basis to invalidate life without parole for <25; sentencing upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645 (standard of review for suppression and voluntariness analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Hammond, 477 Mass. 499 (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 486 Mass. 78 ("now or never" interrogation tactic problematic)
- Commonwealth v. Cartright, 478 Mass. 273 (limits on exploiting religious anxieties; minimization analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Raymond, 424 Mass. 382 (police promises/threats concerning loved ones may coerce confession)
- Commonwealth v. Rand, 487 Mass. 811 (testimonial v. nontestimonial hearsay; harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard)
- Commonwealth v. Brum, 492 Mass. 581 (primary‑purpose test for testimonial statements)
- Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655 (life without parole for juveniles under 18 unconstitutional)
- Commonwealth v. Bateman, 492 Mass. 404 (change‑of‑venue standard; presumptive vs. actual prejudice)