Commonwealth v. Stewart, 460 Mass. 817

Background

Defendant convicted of first-degree murder on felony-murder, deliberate premeditation, and extreme atrocity or cruelty theories, with armed robbery as the predicate felony and three counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
Murder account sourced from defendant’s police confession and testimony of Bergeron and Belsito; Belsito was girlfriend of the accomplice Carpenter.
May 5–6, 2003: at a Worcester storage facility, victim sought drugs; defendant and Carpenter allegedly planned to steal the truck; killing followed during a walk to obtain cigarettes.
Victim stabbed and strangled; body disposed over a nine-foot drop; defendant later claimed details of the murder to Belsito and to police via confession.
Defense argued impairment from drugs prevented requisite intent; trial court denied required findings of not guilty; verdicts affirmed on appeal.
Court conducted a comprehensive review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, finding no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice and no need to vacate or reduce the verdicts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of armed robbery for felony-murder	Commonwealth contends evidence supports armed robbery as predicate.	Ireland asserts no adequate armed-robbery basis in the record.	Sufficient evidence supported predicate armed robbery for felony-murder.
Suicide-watch instruction	Mental state evidence relevant; no error in noting suicide-watch testimony could be ignored.	Instruction to disregard suicide-watch evidence was error and prejudiced defense.	No error; discretion to ignore suicide-watch testimony properly exercised; no substantial miscarriage.
Jury instructions on deliberate premeditation and second degree	Jury instructions properly conveyed required elements; reasonable juror would understand deliberation/premeditation.	Instructions conflated deliberation with premeditation; misled on second-degree malice.	No reversible error; jury properly instructed on deliberation, premeditation, and related malice; no miscarriage.
Mental impairment instruction and ineffective assistance	Mental impairment properly considered in evaluating intent across charges; defense had opportunity to argue impairment.	Counsel ineffective for inadequate focus on impairment as to first-degree murder; potential lesser charges ignored.	No ineffective assistance; trial strategy reasonable; impairment instruction adequately advised jury on burden and alternatives.
Felony-murder second-degree instruction	Mental impairment could reduce to lesser offenses under appropriate theory.	Instruction should have allowed lesser-included-offense instructions based on impairment.	Discretionary; no error; second-degree theory properly distinguished; no basis for new trial.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492 (Mass. 1982) (felony-murder requires homicide during commission of a felony)
Commonwealth v. Tevenal, 401 Mass. 225 (Mass. 1987) (armed robbery may serve as predicate for felony-murder)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 408 Mass. 463 (Mass. 1990) (homicide in escape from underlying felony as felony-murder consideration)
Commonwealth v. No-vicki, 324 Mass. 461 (Mass. 1949) (definition of robbery and intent to permanently deprive)
Commonwealth v. Salerno, 356 Mass. 642 (Mass. 1970) (robbery intent requirements and felonious taking)
Commonwealth v. Gaboriault, 439 Mass. 84 (Mass. 2003) (mental impairment as factor in intent; diminished capacity framework)
Commonwealth v. Meinholz, 420 Mass. 633 (Mass. 1995) (mental impairment interacts with first/second-degree murder instructions)
Commonwealth v. Chipman, 418 Mass. 262 (Mass. 1994) (deliberation/premeditation sequence requirement)
Commonwealth v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457 (Mass. 1905) (deliberation/premeditation sequence principle)
Commonwealth v. Jiles, 428 Mass. 66 (Mass. 1998) (same sequence principle for premeditation)
Commonwealth v. Andrews, 427 Mass. 434 (Mass. 1998) (defendant sought acquittal, not conviction of lesser offense)
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 407 Mass. 731 (Mass. 1990) (defense strategy considerations in trial)
Chambers v. McDaniel, 549 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2008) (due process concerns about juries and premeditation instructions)
Polk v. Sandoval, 503 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (psuedo-same concerns on deliberate/premeditated murder instructions)