943 N.E.2d 970
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- The defendant was indicted for second-degree murder of Carlos Borrero and, after trial, convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
- The victim and the defendant were longtime friends and former roommates who worked together at Turner Fisheries; the defendant grew jealous over the victim’s relationship with a new bartender, Anna Davis.
- On the day of the death, the defendant approached the victim with a long kitchen knife as tensions escalated in the kitchen; coworkers bore witness as the victim was stabbed repeatedly and died from four stab wounds.
- After the stabbing, the defendant remained at the scene, appeared in shock but cooperative, and later expressed a desire for a cigarette and stated statements such as, “It was meant to be.”
- The defense theory centered on self-defense, with the defendant claiming the victim attacked him with a bowl and a knife and that he acted in response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor’s cross-examination violated Doyle | Meade argues Doyle bars impeachment by pre-Miranda silence. | Meade contends the question suggested post-Miranda silence. | No Doyle violation; pre-Miranda silence not protected here. |
| Whether the judge erred in not instructing on the admissibility of prior statements | Meade claims prior statements can be adopted and treated as substantive. | Meade argues the court should have added language about adoption. | Correct instruction given; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the self-defense instruction required a duty-to-retreat definition | Meade seeks explicit retreat language in self-defense instruction. | Meade relies on broader “all proper means” language; retreat not mandated here. | Model instruction adequate; no error in retreat language. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (prohibits impeachment by post-M Miranda silence)
- Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1980) (pre-Miranda silence rule not universal; fidelity to police interrogation context)
- Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1980) (silence after speaking is not protected; omissions within statements)
- Commonwealth v. Daye, 393 Mass. 55 (Mass. 1984) (prior inconsistent statements limited to credibility, not proof of facts)
- Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393 (Mass. 1998) (retreat concept in self-defense context)