Commonwealth v. Santos, 463 Mass. 273

Background

A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of armed robbery and first-degree murder under a felony-murder theory for a shooting death in Lowell; the defendant appeals from evidentiary and trial rulings and for a new trial under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Key prosecution evidence traced planning and execution of the robbery to the defendant and codefendant Claudio Benitez, including a get-away in Marquez’s white Honda and incriminating contact with Gonzalez (Claudio’s sister).
Police recovered physical and testimonial evidence linking the group to the crime, including witness descriptions of four young Hispanic males and contextual items (soda purchase, heroin, distinctive crucifix).
The defendant was interviewed at the police station after arrest on unrelated warrants; he waived Miranda rights, invoked counsel, and the interrogation continued in limited form, with additional questioning about a car and alibi topics.
The Commonwealth introduced statements by the codefendant to Gonzalez, and, at trial, grand jury testimony; Bruton issues arose due to nonredacted statements implicating the defendant.
On appeal, the court reverses and remands for a new trial due to errors in admitting the defendant’s statements and Bruton-related evidence, along with other trial issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the defendant’s custodial statements were admissible	Defendant contends the waiver was not knowing/voluntary due to withdrawal and invocation of rights during interrogation.	Invocation of right to counsel and silence should have ended questioning; continued questioning tainted the statement.	The statements should have been suppressed; admission was not harmless error.
Whether Bruton problems tainted codefendant statements	Codefendant statements introduced through Gonzalez were admissible during joint venture concealment; exclusions were improper.	Some statements implicated the defendant and should have been excluded as Bruton violations.	Erroneous admission of Bruton-relevant statements requires new trial.
Whether the codefendant’s post-venture statement was admissible	Claudio’s post-arrest statement should be admissible as during the joint venture.	Statement was after the enterprise ended and not admissible as vicarious admission.	Admissibility was improper; new trial warranted.
Whether grand jury testimony was admissible substantively	Gonzalez’s grand jury gun-in-waistband testimony should be allowed to impeach or corroborate.	Lack of memory/refreshing memory did not satisfy foundational requirements for substantive use.	Admitting Gonzalez’s grand jury testimony substantively was improper; new trial urged.
Whether third-party culprit evidence (Clermont) was properly admitted	Clermont’s involvement could be probative to a third-party culprit defense with rational links to the crime.	Evidence was attenuated/remote and risked prejudice; proper standards require more showing.	On retrial, the defendant may present a third-party culprit defense; Clermont evidence should be allowed with caution.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Contos, 435 Mass. 19 (2001) (standard for weighing witness credibility in suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 420 Mass. 666 (1995) (Miranda waiver requires knowing, voluntary, and intelligent understanding)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (post-invocation clarification allowed if necessary to clarify rights)
Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143 (2011) (limits on post-invocation questioning and need for clarifying questions)
Commonwealth v. Girouard, 436 Mass. 657 (2002) (ambiguous invocation of right to counsel and interrogation continuation)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (inadmissibility of non-testifying codefendant statements incriminating others)
Commonwealth v. White, 370 Mass. 703 (1976) (joint venture statements and timing of concealment phase)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195 (2005) (joint venture liability for statements made during cooperation)
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 454 Mass. 527 (2009) (out-of-court statements among coventurers during joint venture)
Commonwealth v. Vasquez, 462 Mass. 427 (2012) (Bruton-like inference considerations in multi-defendant cases)