Commonwealth v. Santana
477 Mass. 610
| Mass. | 2017Background
- On August 25, 2004 Rafael Castro was killed in a Lawrence apartment during a home invasion; Norma Cedeno survived and identified multiple assailants and described torture/threats during the incident.
- Physical evidence recovered: rolls/pieces of duct tape (one with blood), a torn tape piece from bathroom trash with a DNA mixture matching Santana as the major contributor, and a latent fingerprint on a roll matched to Joonel Garcia.
- Santana (defendant) spoke to his probation officer twice offering information about the shooting; he was later interviewed in jail on March 4, 2005 by Trooper LaBarge with Detective Cueva translating; parts of the interview were recorded; Santana waived Miranda in Spanish but asked that statements not be used in court.
- At trial the jury convicted Santana of first‑degree murder (extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony‑murder with home invasion/armed burglary, assault on occupant predicates).
- On appeal Santana challenged denial of suppression (voluntariness), admission of various hearsay/expert substitute testimony, denial of a DiGiambattista instruction for incomplete recording, denial of mistrial after repeated references to other arrests, and certain prosecutor closing remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Santana's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of March 4, 2005 statements (motion to suppress) | Warnings in Spanish, oral/written Miranda waiver, and explicit statements that cooperation could be shared with prosecutor/court dissipated any promise of confidentiality; totality shows voluntariness | Initial request that statements not be used in court plus imperfect/incomplete translation by Cueva rendered any assurance of confidentiality coercive and statements involuntary | Affirmed: statement voluntary; Miranda warnings and subsequent translations dispelled confidentiality assurance; suppression not required |
| DiGiambattista jury instruction for incomplete audio recording | Recording was incomplete in part because defendant requested it stopped, but DiGiambattista instruction not required here | Requested instruction because part of custodial interrogation was not fully audiotaped | Error to deny instruction, but error was nonprejudicial given partly exculpatory statements and defense strategy; conviction stands |
| Admission of hearsay (trooper testimony re: "bite mark" and accusation that defendant was in apartment) | Statements admissible for context and inferences; DNA and torn‑tape evidence supported prosecutor inferences about bite and transfer | Bite‑mark remark was hearsay (and testimonial); trooper's accusatory statements violated confrontation/hearsay rules | Bite‑mark remark was inadmissible hearsay but harmless (no miscarriage of justice); trooper's accusation admitted for context only (nonhearsay purpose) with limiting instruction, so no confrontation violation |
| Substitute medical examiner & expert reliance on nontestifying examiner's drawings | Substitute may rely on autopsy report/photographs and give independent opinion; witness cross‑examinable on foundation | Use of drawings by nontestifying pathologist deprived Santana of meaningful cross‑examination and violated Crawford/Greineder principles | Admission consistent with Reavis/Greineder because substitute offered independent opinion and was cross‑examined; limited stricken testimony handled appropriately |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (judicial instruction required when custodial interrogation not fully audiotaped)
- Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 460 Mass. 199 (voluntariness standard and psychological coercion principles)
- Commonwealth v. Baye, 462 Mass. 246 (assurances of confidentiality often coercive; totality analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Reavis, 465 Mass. 875 (scope of substitute medical examiner testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Greineder, 464 Mass. 580 (limits on substitute pathologist reliance on nontestifying examiner's findings and cross‑examination requirement)
- Commonwealth v. Melo, 472 Mass. 278 (appellate review standards for mixed findings of fact and documentary evidence)
