Commonwealth v. Johnson, 463 Mass. 95

Background

Mumin Manavoglu was shot in the face during a November 1, 2007 robbery at his Dorchester restaurant and died two days later.
The defendant, apprehended minutes after the incident, was identified by two witnesses and confessed during a police interview.
Convicted on counts of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, and unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition without an FID card.
The trial court denied suppression of the defendant’s interview statements; on appeal, the defendant challenges suppression, gunshot residue evidence, witness-observation training testimony, and closing arguments.
The Commonwealth’s armed robbery conviction was vacated as duplicative of the felony-murder predicate, and the case was remanded for dismissal of the indictment; other convictions were affirmed.
The victim died on November 3, 2007; additional physical evidence connected to the clothing and firearm found near the scene.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the statements obtained in violation of Miranda or involuntary?	Manavoglu contends statements were involuntary and coerced.	Cordy argues the interview was conducted under coercive conditions and false statements were used.	Statements were voluntary; suppression denied.
Was gunshot residue testing admissible and properly interpreted?	Defendant challenges residue testimony as junk science and false proffer.	Defendant asserts the evidence was unreliable or falsely presented.	Testimony admissible and properly interpreted; not error.
Did testimony about a witness's military observation training and its use in closing argument constitute improper bolstering?	Heggie’s training helped identify the suspect and should be admissible to explain identification.	Training evidence bolstered credibility improperly and biased the jury.	Not reversible error; admissible with caution; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage.
Did the prosecutor’s closing arguments improperly shift the burden or misstate evidence?	Prosecutor emphasized stubborn facts and suggested weight of evidence favored the Commonwealth.	Arguments improperly shifted burden and mischaracterized heart-rate evidence.	No prejudicial burden-shifting; closing arguments were within bounds; no substantial miscarriage.
Should the court grant a new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E based on eyewitness unreliability?	Eyewitness testimony is unreliable and warrants new-trial relief.	Reliability questions require new trial due to eyewitness concerns.	Declined to grant a new trial; eyewitness evidence considered with other trial evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Meehan, 377 Mass. 552 (Mass. 1979) (limits on implied coercion and voluntariness; cautionary guidance on interrogation.)
Commonwealth v. Tolan, 453 Mass. 634 (Mass. 2009) (voluntariness considering totality of circumstances; reaffirmation of free will standard.)
Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 433 Mass. 549 (Mass. 2001) (emotional state and rationality in voluntary statements analysis.)
Commonwealth v. Baye, 462 Mass. 246 (Mass. 2012) (limitations on police exaggeration in interrogation and voluntariness.)
Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (Mass. 2011) (gunshot residue evidence admissibility and probative value.)
Commonwealth v. Odware, 429 Mass. 231 (Mass. 1999) (eyewitness identification considerations and weight of testimony.)
Commonwealth v. Montez, 450 Mass. 736 (Mass. 2008) (closing argument and burden of proof considerations.)
Commonwealth v. Amirault, 404 Mass. 221 (Mass. 1989) (burden shifting limitations and trial counsel guidance.)
Commonwealth v. Tu Trinh, 458 Mass. 776 (Mass. 2011) (closing arguments and burden-shifting analysis.)
Commonwealth v. Odware, 429 Mass. 231 (Mass. 1999) (eyewitness identification considerations and weight of testimony.)