Commonwealth v. Howard, 469 Mass. 721

Howard shot and killed Maurice Ricketts at Baystate Pool Supplies in Cambridge on Jan. 28, 2009, while working as a handyman; after breakfast he followed the victim into the chemical building and yard, fired multiple shots, and fled in a van.
Roczyński and Najarian initially directed Howard to obtain breakfast; later witnesses saw him confront the victim with a gun.
Howard was arrested in Roxbury, allegedly disposed of the gun in the Charles River, and was interrogated; he made unsolicited statements during transport and at the Roxbury and Cambridge bookings.
The defense offered testimony from Dr. Joss asserting Axis II personality disorder with diminished capacity; the Commonwealth presented Dr. Fife denying mental illness and capacity issues.
A pretrial motion to suppress challenged the January 29, 2009 statements as involuntary or Miranda-violation; the trial court denied the motion, and Howard was convicted of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
On review, the court vacated the first-degree murder verdict, ordering possible resentencing to second-degree murder if retrial on first-degree is not pursued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Postinvocation statements were admitted despite invocation of the right to silence	State contends statements were voluntary and properly admitted	Statements following invocation violated Miranda and Mosley protections	Postinvocation statements improperly admitted; reversal warranted for first-degree murder
Prosecutor’s closing used postinvocation and prior bad acts to show propensity	Prosecutor argued defendant’s character and prior acts to prove guilt	Closing violated evidentiary limits and Doyle/ Mahdi principles	Closing improper; requires reversal on at least one theory of first-degree murder
Judge’s mental impairment instruction misdescribed how impairment related to malice and extreme cruelty	Mental impairment evidence supported first-degree verdicts	Instruction failed to connect impairment to all prongs of malice and cruelty	Instruction was erroneous; contributed to prejudice and reversal warranted
Admission of prior forklift and related acts admissible under state-of-mind, pattern, and relationship theories	Evidence showed pattern of hostility and motive	Evidence risked improper propensity reasoning	Prior acts admissible for limited non-propensity purposes; not dispositive error; but part of overall reversal

Commonwealth v. Diaz, 422 Mass. 269 (Mass. 1996) (voluntariness when intoxicated; Miranda context)
Commonwealth v. Durand, 457 Mass. 574 (Mass. 2010) (totality of circumstances for voluntariness; intoxication factor)
Commonwealth v. Robidoux, 450 Mass. 144 (Mass. 2007) (postwaiver invocation standard of clarity)
Commonwealth v. Santos, 463 Mass. 273 (Mass. 2012) (situations where statements may indicate willingness to continue questioning)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (reinvocation of right to silence requires scrupulous honoring)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (prohibition on using the invocation of Miranda rights to prove guilt)