Commonwealth v. Silva, 471 Mass. 610

Silva and Pimental, both 18, attacked a intoxicated victim in Wareham, stomping and kicking him; they took the victim's belongings and left the woods.
The victim died from blunt force trauma to the chest; DNA on Silva's sneaker matched the victim's blood.
Police later found the victim’s body and arrested Pimental; Silva was held on an outstanding warrant and transported to the PCCF.
S sneakers were seized from the PCCF under a search warrant issued June 11, 2004, after a clothes-forensic test basis; the PCCF policy treated personal clothing as contraband.
The defense challenged the suppression rulings, particularly the seizure of sneakers, the joint-venture instruction, involuntary manslaughter instruction, and closing argument burden-shift; Silva was convicted of first-degree murder and armed robbery.
The trial court denied most suppression motions; the appeals court affirmed the convictions on multiple grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sneaker seizure violated Fourth Amendment/art. 14.	State argues policy allowed seizure; warrant obtained before seizure.	Silva had privacy interest; seizure was warrantless and unlawful.	No, no protection due to policy and lack of reasonable expectation.
Whether joint venture instruction violated due process.	Commonwealth clearly argued joint participation; Belmore testimony supported.	No notice that joint venture would be used as theory.	No error; instruction proper given evidence and Zanetti standard.
Whether involuntary manslaughter instruction was required.	Evidence showed intent to grievous bodily harm.	No basis for involuntary manslaughter given intent.	Not error; evidence supported first-degree murder theory.
Whether prosecutor shifted burden in closing argument.	Prosecutor emphasized strengths of case against defendant.	Closing argument misled by suggesting defendant bore burden.	No error; argument was permissible responsive rebuttal.
Relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.	None specified beyond general review.	Entitled to relief for miscarriage of justice.	No basis for § 33E relief; judgments affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Bly, 448 Mass. 473 (Mass. 2007) (two-part privacy analysis for warrantless seizures in custody settings)
Commonwealth v. Montanez, 410 Mass. 290 (Mass. 1991) (privacy expectations of detainees; applicability of Warren rights)
Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2009) (joint venture requirements; intent and knowing participation standards)
Commonwealth v. Pimental, 454 Mass. 475 (Mass. 2009) (extreme atrocity/ cruelty and third-prong malice; related standard)
Commonwealth v. Jessup, 471 Mass. 121 (Mass. 2015) (no involuntary-manslaughter instruction for felony-murder)
Commonwealth v. Rosa, 468 Mass. 231 (Mass. 2014) (privacy expectations in inmate telephone monitoring)
Matter of a Grand Jury Subpoena, 454 Mass. 685 (Mass. 2009) (art. 14 and Turner framework in jail settings)