Commonwealth v. Smith
459 Mass. 538
| Mass. | 2011Background
- Defendant convicted of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and felony-murder; also convicted of armed home invasion and unlawful possession of a firearm.
- Gangs Crips and Bloods operated drug businesses from Higgs’s North Adams apartment; conflicts and violence ensued among gang members.
- Osmond, a Bloods member, was murdered on July 25, 2006; defendant admitted shooting Osmond after an altercation.
- Indictment for armed home invasion did not identify the victim or the specific dwelling; trial proceeded with evidence tending to two separate home invasions.
- Judge instructed that felony-murder predicate could be supported by the Higgs apartment incident; after trial, armed home invasion conviction was reversed due to indictment ambiguity, but felony-murder conviction stood.
- Threat evidence appeared at trial (threat to Iberra and Ceasar and family), later argued to show gang dynamics; remains part of the record with related witness testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment ambiguity for armed home invasion | Commonwealth argued no ambiguity; felony-murder predicate can be underlying yet uncharged. | Barbosa requirement of specificity violated; substantial risk defendant convicted for a nonindicted incident. | Armed home invasion conviction reversed; felony-murder conviction affirmed. |
| Admission of threat evidence | Threat evidence showed gang involvement and motive within drug operation context. | Threat was inflammatory and linked to neither defendant nor current custody. | Evidence properly admitted; no reversible prejudice. |
| Self-defense and excessive force instructions | Instructions relevant to self-defense for the murder theories. | Instructions erroneous similar to Santos, potentially prejudicial. | Because murder affirmed on felony-murder theory, self-defense/excessive force instructions do not affect the verdict; no reversal needed. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel deprived defendant of right to testify, failed to call exculpatory witnesses, and misadvised or failed strategy analysis. | Counsel's conduct deprived defendant of trial rights and weakened defenses. | No ineffective assistance; decisions not manifestly unreasonable given risks and strategic considerations. |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing on motion for a new trial | Judge should have held an evidentiary hearing on asserted issues of defense and counsel performance. | Evidentiary hearing necessary to resolve substantial issues of right to testify and representation. | No abuse of discretion; no substantial issues requiring an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 421 Mass. 547 (Mass. 1995) (indictment ambiguity requires reversal when multiple incidents could have supported the charge)
- Commonwealth v. Smiley, 431 Mass. 477 (Mass. 2000) (felony-murder indictment does not necessarily specify the incident charged)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 402 Mass. 775 (Mass. 1988) (right to testify; waiver must be knowing and intelligent)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (sufficiency of evidence standards in murder cases)
- Commonwealth v. Nolin, 448 Mass. 207 (Mass. 2007) (two-theory murder verdicts: if one theory sustained on appeal, other theory need not be reconsidered)
- Commonwealth v. Pagan, 440 Mass. 84 (Mass. 2003) (self-defense limits in armed home invasion scenarios)
- Commonwealth v. Adams, 374 Mass. 722 (Mass. 1978) (ineffective assistance standards; trial strategy considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678 (Mass. 1992) (standard for evaluating unpreserved claims of ineffective assistance in murder prosecutions)