45 N.E.3d 111
Mass. App. Ct.2016Background
- Sixteen-year-old Markeese Mitchell, Terrance Pabon, and Pedro Ortiz were convicted of second-degree murder for the May 22, 2007 stabbing death of Terrance Jacobs.
- Goode, originally indicted with the others, was severed from the joint appeal; his police statement was redacted for trial.
- The Commonwealth introduced Mitchell’s and Pabon’s statements at trial; Bruton concerns arose from Goode’s redacted statement.
- Mitchell and Pabon challenged suppression rulings, arguing their statements were involuntary or unlawfully obtained; Goode’s redacted statement raised Bruton and verbal completeness issues.
- Mitchell argued youth sentencing issues under Miller/Diatchenko and Okoro; the court held Okoro controls and the youth sentencing scheme comports with law.
- The Appeals Court upheld the convictions and denied postconviction relief, resolving Bruton/verbal completeness issues and closing arguments challenges in favor of the Commonwealth.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of Mitchell’s statement | Mitchell’s age and circumstances rendered the interview custodial and Miranda warnings required | Statement voluntary; no custodial interrogation; Miranda not triggered | Statement voluntary; no Miranda error; not custodial |
| Suppression of Pabon’s statement | Police coerced waiver; misapplied Miranda; coercive effect of tactical questioning | Waiver knowing and voluntary; Miranda warnings properly given | Miranda warnings given; waiver voluntary; suppression denied |
| Youthful offender sentencing | Miller/Diatchenko require individualized sentencing for juveniles | Okoro controls; life sentence for juvenile murderer permissible | Okoro governs; no individualized sentencing requirement; life with parole admissible under law |
| Admission of Goode’s redacted statement (Bruton/Verbal completeness) | Redacted statement implicates codefendants; violates Bruton and verbal completeness | Redactions plus limiting instruction cure Bruton risk | No Bruton violation; limiting instructions adequate; any error cured |
| Withdrawal from joint venture instruction | Jury should be given instruction on withdrawal/abandonment | No evidence supporting withdrawal theory; instruction improper | Judge properly refused withdrawal instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (Supreme Court 1968) (non-testifying codefendant's statement cannot be used to prejudice another defendant)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (Supreme Court 1998) (redacted statements cannot be used to directly incriminate another when facially accusatory)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 464 Mass. 56 (Mass. 2013) (limits on Bruton claims and needs for limiting instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Keevan, 400 Mass. 557 (Mass. 1987) (verbal completeness can cure Bruton-type issues with proper instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Okoro, 471 Mass. 51 (Mass. 2015) (juvenile sentencing under current statute does not violate Eighth Amendment or art. 26)