Commonwealth v. Martinez
458 Mass. 684
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Martinez, known as Pinocchio, was at a Chelsea party; Mejia was intoxicated and killed in a park; Ingles assisted; both men hit and burned Mejia’s body.
- DNA tests linked semen and a jeans sample to the victim; Martinez matched none of the first two items’ DNA; jeans DNA was inconclusive.
- Martinez gave two statements to police; the second was tape-recorded after interrogation began around 3:00 a.m. on July 24, 2002.
- Pretrial suppression issues contested voluntariness of the Miranda waiver and the second statement, and whether Rosario’s six-hour rule applied.
- The motion judge found the statements voluntary and the Rosario issue was preserved on appeal; the trial proceeded to verdict on felony-murder with aggravated rape as the predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of waiver and second statement | Martinez argues Miranda waiver and second statement were involuntary. | Martinez contends prolonged interrogation and fatigue undermined voluntariness. | Waiver voluntary; second statement voluntary; no reversible error. |
| Prompt arraignment under Rosario | Rosario six-hour rule should have excluded the statement. | Martinez was not in custody before 9:22 p.m.; Rosario safe harbor applied. | Rosario safe harbor satisfied; statement admissible. |
| Use of nickname Pinocchio at trial | Alias evidence aided identification; not prejudicial overall. | Alias could suggest criminal propensity; prejudicial. | No reversible error; curative restrictions adequate. |
| Credibility attack for Ingles’s plea testimony | Prosecutor properly questioned Ingles about truthfulness under the plea. | Permission to probe credibility overstepped limits beyond Ciampa. | Permissible; Ciampa framework followed; proper jury instruction given. |
| Memorial view and potential extraneous influence | Jury saw a victim memorial during view; risk of prejudice. | No substantial prejudice; judge issued curative instructions. | No mistrial; curative instructions adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mandile, 397 Mass. 410 (1986) (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness)
- Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375 (1995) (six-hour interval does not require fresh warnings)
- Commonwealth v. Cruz, 373 Mass. 676 (1977) (Miranda warnings are not perpetual; free to waive later)
- Commonwealth v. Ciampa, 406 Mass. 257 (1989) (redirect questions on plea to witness’s obligation to testify truthfully allowed; limits on cross-examination)
- Commonwealth v. Rosario, 422 Mass. 48 (1996) (six-hour safe harbor before arraignment)
- Commonwealth v. Sneed, 440 Mass. 216 (2003) (voluntariness standard factors; will not be overborne)