143 N.E.3d 397
Mass.2020Background
- Early morning of Sept. 5, 2011: defendant Jose Tejada told a neighbor he had killed his wife and her two teenage children; neighbor translated for police after they arrived.
- Defendant repeated to police (via translation) that he had shot his family, gave the apartment address, said he tried to shoot himself but ran out of bullets, and said he discarded the gun.
- Police went to the address, forced entry, discovered three victims deceased in an upstairs bedroom, and then arrested Tejada; Miranda warnings were given only after the arrest in the cruiser.
- Forensic evidence: bloody footprints consistent with defendant’s shoes, gunshot residue on his hands, victims’ blood on his clothing, and a revolver with six spent casings (matching scene bullets) found behind the building with blood matching the wife.
- Pretrial: judge suppressed statements made after Tejada was handcuffed/placed in cruiser but denied suppression of his parking‑lot statements. Jury convicted Tejada of three counts of first‑degree murder (premeditation and extreme atrocity).
- On appeal Tejada argued insufficiency of evidence, Miranda/custodial and voluntariness errors, erroneous refusal to ask a requested anti‑Hispanic voir‑dire question, and sought relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Tejada's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to sustain first‑degree murder (premeditation/extreme atrocity) | Evidence (confession to neighbor/police, close‑range shootings, footprints, GSR, blood, recovered revolver matching casings) supports intent and premeditation | Intoxication/mental state and lack of proof of premeditation negated specific intent | Convictions affirmed; evidence sufficient to prove deliberate premeditation |
| Whether parking‑lot statements required Miranda warnings | Initial questions in a public parking lot were non‑custodial under Groome factors; no warnings required | The defendant was effectively in custody and should have received Miranda warnings | Court held parking‑lot statements non‑custodial (no Miranda required); later cruiser statements properly suppressed |
| Voluntariness and need for voir dire on voluntariness | No substantial claim of involuntariness; conflicting evidence of intoxication/agitation did not compel sua sponte voir dire; jury instructed to assess voluntariness | Statements were involuntary (intoxication, suicidal ideation); judge should have conducted voir dire sua sponte | No substantial claim of involuntariness; judge not required to hold sua sponte voir dire; jury instruction adequate |
| Requested voir dire question on anti‑Hispanic bias | Judge had discretion; both defendant and victims were Hispanic so Espinal rule did not mandate probing; judge asked about interpreter issue instead | Requested direct question whether Hispanics from cities like Lawrence are more likely to commit violent crimes should have been asked | No abuse of discretion in declining the specific question; voir dire on interpreter/partiality was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation triggers requirement to warn of rights)
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (2001) (four‑factor test to determine whether questioning was custodial)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 435 Mass. 113 (2001) (deliberate premeditation may be found from rapid successive shootings and repeated firing at close range)
- Commonwealth v. Andrews, 427 Mass. 434 (1998) (use of a firearm at close range supports finding of intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 371 Mass. 462 (1976) (judge must hold voir dire outside jury on voluntariness when a substantial claim of involuntariness exists)
- Commonwealth v. Espinal, 482 Mass. 190 (2019) (where victim and defendant are of different races/ethnicities in certain crimes, judge must probe for racial bias on request)
- Commonwealth v. Cawthron, 479 Mass. 612 (2018) (one Groome factor—lack of freedom to leave—may be insufficient alone to establish custody)