Commonwealth v. Mercado
466 Mass. 141
| Mass. | 2013Background
- Victim was shot multiple times in a Brockton apartment building on Feb. 6–7, 2006; six casings recovered and multiple witnesses placed the defendant at the scene shooting a gun.
- Four eyewitnesses (granted immunity under G. L. c. 233, § 20E) testified consistently that Mercado was present in the hallway and that they heard/observed him fire the gun.
- After the shooting Mercado went to Puerto Rico and was interviewed there by law enforcement; he allegedly identified himself as "Ariel Rivera." No Miranda warnings were given at that interview.
- Mercado was convicted of first‑degree murder (deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity/cruelty, and felony‑murder) after a 2009 trial; postconviction he moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance concerning the suppression motion and other errors.
- The trial judge denied the motion for a new trial; the Appeals Court reviewed the conviction and denial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Mercado's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to suppress Puerto Rico statement | Counsel adequately litigated suppression; even if error, statement’s suppression would not have produced a miscarriage of justice because independent evidence was strong | Counsel should have developed record showing interview at FBI office (custodial) and suppressed inculpatory statement; trial counsel ineffective | No ineffective assistance; even assuming suppression error, no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice given strong independent evidence of guilt |
| Closure of courtroom for § 20E immunity hearing | § 20E(b) requires closed hearings; immunity process is not part of defendant’s trial rights so closure didn’t violate right to public trial | Closure violated Sixth Amendment public‑trial right when defendant and counsel were excluded | Held constitutional: § 20E hearings need not be public and exclusion of defendant/defense counsel was proper |
| Jury instruction misstating burden of proof (slips: substituting “defendant” and omitting “not”) | Overall charge repeatedly and correctly stated Commonwealth’s burden; slips were isolated and not misleading | Misstatements lowered Commonwealth’s burden and violated due process | No reversal: charge read as whole would not reasonably mislead jury; no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice |
| Sufficiency under G. L. c. 278, § 33E for felony‑murder (armed robbery predicate) | Evidence supported first‑degree murder on premeditation/atrocity and felony‑murder alternative | Felony‑murder instruction unsupported because no evidence defendant committed or attempted robbery at time of shooting | Exercising § 33E: insufficient evidence to sustain first‑degree felony‑murder (armed robbery) conviction, but conviction on deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity/cruelty affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Larkin, 429 Mass. 426 (describing custodial interrogation standard for prisoners)
- Commonwealth v. Alicea, 464 Mass. 837 (review of denial of new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (§ 33E review and miscarriage‑of‑justice standard)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 418 Mass. 76 (standard for evaluating unobjected‑to jury instruction errors)
- Commonwealth v. Brum, 438 Mass. 103 (§ 33E review of suppression rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (consciousness of guilt and ineffective assistance analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Nolin, 448 Mass. 207 (affirming first‑degree verdict where at least one theory is supported)
- Commonwealth v. Carrion, 407 Mass. 263 (flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt)