Commonwealth v. Johnston
467 Mass. 674
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant (a police/security officer) drove to the victim’s home after an earlier heated exchange, entered with a rifle, and shot the victim six times, killing him; rifle, DNA and fingerprints tied the defendant to the scene.
- After the killing defendant disposed of the rifle, was found impaired by Hadley police, admitted recent drinking, and later was subject to civil commitment proceedings and restraint at a hospital; toxicology was negative for cocaine/amphetamines.
- Defense theory at trial: lack of criminal responsibility due to a psychotic delusional disorder (experts testified to paranoid schizophrenia or delusional disorder).
- Commonwealth’s theory: defendant’s delusions were substance-induced or otherwise not a major mental illness; evidence emphasized lucid, goal-directed behavior shortly after the shooting and at institutional intake.
- Procedural posture: defendant convicted of first‑degree murder (multiple theories), armed burglary, and firearm offenses; motion for new trial denied; appeal asserts evidentiary error, ineffective assistance, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous jury instructions; court affirms convictions and denies relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of post‑shooting field sobriety and interaction evidence | Commonwealth: evidence showed defendant’s lucidity and was relevant to state of mind | Defendant: counsel should have objected; statements/test refusals invoked rights and were prejudicial | No error; evidence was relevant to state of mind and counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Admission/use of hospital/HOCR interview refusals & references to counsel | Commonwealth: records admissible for mental/emotional condition; prosecutor used limitedly | Defendant: references to advice/request for counsel should have been redacted and exclusion sought; counsel ineffective | References to counsel should have been redacted but introduction was strategic; limiting instruction cured prejudice and no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Alleged ineffective assistance (multiple episodes: counsel’s cross/examination miscues, failure to suppress, hearsay) | Defendant: counsel failed to object, impeach effectively, or move to suppress, producing prejudice | Commonwealth: many failures were strategic or non‑prejudicial; errors were harmless or would not have succeeded | Majority of claims rejected: no prejudice shown or decisions were strategic; hearsay elicited from expert was improper but cumulative and harmless |
| Jury instructions re: lack of criminal responsibility and drug/alcohol activation (Berry/DiPadova) | Defendant: judge failed to instruct per Berry/DiPadova that self‑intoxication that exacerbates illness is irrelevant | Defendant: requested model instruction about commitment consequences | Judge’s charge sufficiently explained consequences and allowed for consideration of intoxication effects; absence of Berry/DiPadova wording not reversible here given experts’ positions and record |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Murdough, 428 Mass. 760 (police community‑caretaking context)
- Commonwealth v. Comita, 441 Mass. 86 (ineffective assistance—prejudice requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Mahdi, 388 Mass. 679 (factors for evaluating prejudicial refusal evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (harmless‑error standard for certain trial errors)
- Commonwealth v. Mutina, 366 Mass. 810 (instructional requests re: consequences of NCR verdict)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 449 Mass. 747 (standards for § 33E review)
- Commonwealth v. Berry, 457 Mass. 602 (instructing on intoxication that aggravates mental illness)
- Commonwealth v. DiPadova, 460 Mass. 424 (further discussion refining Berry)