Commonwealth v. Martin, 467 Mass. 291

Background

Defendant (Martin) and codefendant Robinson were tried separately for the August 25, 2005 stabbing death of taxi driver Heu-reur Previlon; Robinson acquitted, Martin convicted of first‑degree felony‑murder predicated on armed robbery (robbery conviction placed on file; later vacated as duplicative).
Evidence: surveillance footage, DNA matching victim’s blood on clothing found in co‑defendant’s girlfriend Pizarra’s apartment, witnesses saw defendants shortly before the trip, and defendants had blood on clothes after the incident; a knife with foil‑wrapped handle was shown to Pizarra.
Police obtained the defendant’s cellular phone at Jette Court, statements were made by the defendant at three occasions (Jette Court encounter, Virginia interrogation, Brighton District Court holding cell), and two jailhouse inmates testified to overheard inculpatory statements.
Pretrial suppression motions and a motion to cross‑examine Commonwealth witness Pizarra about an unrelated false accusation were denied; at trial the Commonwealth presented evidence that items normally carried by the victim (small bills, a black bag, street guide, small hackney license) were missing.
Defendant moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance for failing to investigate dispatch tickets and surveillance video and for failing to object to admission of business‑habit evidence; the judge denied the motion and the conviction was affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Martin)	Held
1) Admissibility of statements and seized phone from Jette Court encounter	Statements and phone admissible—no unconstitutional seizure; phone abandoned so searchable	Stop was an unconstitutional seizure; phone search without warrant violated privacy; statements prejudicial	No seizure; police request to "talk" was not a stop; phone abandoned (no expectation of privacy); motion to suppress denied.
2) Validity of waiver after Virginia interrogation given counsel’s letter	No Mavredakis violation; letter told police not to question, not legal advice to defendant; detectives complied and gave Miranda warnings	Waiver invalid because police failed to inform defendant of counsel’s letter (Mavredakis) and conditioned discussion on waiver	Waiver valid: letter did not communicate legal advice to defendant triggering Mavredakis; detectives reasonably had defendant review Miranda form before further questioning.
3) Statements in Brighton holding cell (Miranda/interrogation)	Statements spontaneous or not product of custodial interrogation; any error harmless	Crowley’s question constituted custodial interrogation—statements should be suppressed	Initial spontaneous exclamation admissible; Crowley’s follow‑up was custodial interrogation but its admission was harmless given abundant other evidence of consciousness of guilt.
4) Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery element (taking of something of value)	Circumstantial evidence (habit/business practice testimony, missing items) supports inference items/small bills were taken	Insufficient proof that anything of value was taken; Commonwealth failed to establish victim had small bills or bag when assaulted	Evidence sufficient: recurring testimony that victim habitually carried small bills, a black bag, street guide, and small license plus their absence after death permitted reasonable inference of taking.
5) Exclusion of cross‑examination about Pizarra’s unrelated false accusation	Cross‑examination limited but Pizarra was otherwise extensively impeached; prior false allegation unrelated and inadmissible	Exclusion violated confrontation and defense rights because it showed motive to lie	No abuse of discretion: prior false accusation was unrelated, no pending prosecution, and defendant had ample alternative impeachment.
6) Ineffective assistance / new trial claims (failure to investigate dispatch tickets and surveillance video; failure to object to business habit evidence)	Counsel’s choices were reasonable; business‑habit evidence admissible; further investigation unlikely to change verdict	Counsel failed to investigate dispatch tickets and missed shadowy figure on video—prejudicial lapses	No relief: business‑habit evidence properly admitted; additional dispatch inquiry speculative and unlikely to alter outcome; failure to detect ambiguous video movement not shown to be culpable or outcome‑determinative.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (seizure standard: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (functional equivalent of interrogation test)
Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848 (police duty when attorney communicates advice to cease questioning)
Commonwealth v. McNulty, 458 Mass. 305 (prejudice and scope of Mavredakis analysis)
Commonwealth v. LaVelle, 414 Mass. 146 (limits on cross‑examining witness about specific prior misconduct)
Palinkas v. Bennett, 416 Mass. 273 (foundations for admitting business‑habit evidence)
Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89 (standard for ineffective assistance on direct appeal)