Commonwealth v. Rivera
464 Mass. 56
Mass.2013Background
- Two armed assailants murdered Karen Young and Roland Chow during a home invasion at 40 Parker Hill Ave., Boston, with duct-tape binding and guns; Li survived.
- Terrence Brown and Nathan Rivera were charged with multiple offenses including two counts of first-degree murder; joint trial ensued; Brown’s fingerprint was found on duct tape.
- Brown gave an initial unrecorded interview denying involvement, then admitted after police disclosed fingerprint evidence; a redacted version of his later statement was played at trial.
- Rivera gave a recorded alibi and later testimony conflicted with corroborating evidence, including testimony from third-party witnesses and phone records.
- Brown challenged the suppression of his post-Milgram interview, and the admissibility of the redacted and unredacted statements; issues also involved Bruton effects and severance.
- The trial court admitted the redacted Brown statement with limiting instructions; Brown and Rivera challenged various evidentiary and instructional rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to inform per Mavredakis | Brown: police failed to convey Milgram’s message. | Brown: Mavredakis duty violated art. 12; McNulty expanded duty. | No complete duty to relay all messages; admission proper |
| Use of redacted statement under Bruton | Rivera: redaction violated confrontation rights. | Brown: proper limiting instruction cures Bruton issue. | Redacted statement admissible with proper limiting instructions |
| Severance vs. joinder with redacted statement | Rivera: severance required for Bruton concerns. | Brown: severance not required; defenses not mutually antagonistic. | No abuse of discretion; severance denied |
| Withdrawal instruction adequacy | Brown: withdrawal instruction appropriate given evidence. | Brown: withdrawal evidence insufficient; model instruction improper if not warranted. | Insufficient evidence to warrant withdrawal instruction |
| Confrontation and medical evidence | Rivera: substitute examiner testimony violated confrontation; autopsy photos/authentication issues. | Admissibility under Nardi/Durand; photographs limited value; harmless overall. | No substantial miscarriage of justice; errors harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mavredakis, 430 Mass. 848 (Mass. 2000) (duty to inform when attorney identifies himself to police)
- Commonwealth v. McNulty, 458 Mass. 305 (Mass. 2010) (limits on informing defendant of attorney’s contact; four-point conveyance rule)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (codefendant's confidential statements implicating co-defendant violate confrontation)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (Bruton is a narrow exception; redaction can cure in context)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (blanked or deleted references can still be incriminating)
- Commonwealth v. Blake, 428 Mass. 57 (Mass. 1998) (limiting instruction suffices where incrimination is contextual)
- Commonwealth v. James, 424 Mass. 770 (Mass. 1997) (no Bruton violation where codefendant’s statement is contextual and non-direct)
- Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 462 Mass. 827 (Mass. 2012) (joint trial Bruton considerations and confrontation rights)
- Commonwealth v. Durand, 457 Mass. 574 (Mass. 2010) (medical examiner testimony bases opinions on facts in autopsy records)
- Commonwealth v. Nardi, 452 Mass. 379 (Mass. 2008) (substitute examiner may rely on autopsy findings and admissible photographs)