Commonwealth v. Vacher
469 Mass. 425
Mass.2014Background
- Victim Jordan Mendes (16) was found stabbed, shot, and burned on Dec. 16, 2008; evidence suggested robbery of pills/cash. Defendant Robert Vacher (then 20) was tried and convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation, atrocity, and felony‑murder) and related offenses.
- Three juveniles (including “Charlie” and “John,” both ~13) and the defendant were implicated in a joint‑venture theft/robbery scheme involving Percocet; police interviewed the juveniles on Dec. 18 and later interviewed the defendant after a BOLO and vehicle stop.
- Juvenile Court suppressed most of Charlie’s and John’s statements for failure to follow juvenile interrogation protocols; the defendant sought suppression of derivative evidence (e.g., vehicle search) arguing those statements tainted probable cause.
- At trial forty‑five witnesses testified, five under grants of immunity; evidence included DNA/blood on items, a bloody knife in a Nissan the defendant had driven, new clothing and bloody items in the defendant’s BMW, and third‑party confessions by the defendant to several people.
- Trial issues on appeal: (1) whether Massachusetts should recognize “target standing” to suppress evidence derived from constitutional violations of third parties; (2) facial and as‑applied challenge to the witness‑immunity statute (G. L. c. 233, §§ 20C–20E); (3) admission of officer lay‑identification of surveillance photos; (4) failure to give a DiGiambattista jury instruction about an incompletely recorded custodial interrogation; and (5) jury instruction regarding knowledge of coventurers’ weapon possession under joint‑venture/felony‑murder theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Vacher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of "target standing" under art. 14 to challenge statements of juveniles used to obtain search warrants | Police pursued multiple suspects; suppression of juveniles’ statements in juvenile court does not automatically entitle third parties to suppress derivative evidence | Vacher: he was the actual target; should be able to assert juveniles’ Fourth Amendment violations to suppress evidence (target standing) | Court assumed possibility of target standing not required to decide; found record showed juveniles were genuine suspects, not mere "small fish," so Vacher was not entitled to target standing on these facts; suppression denial affirmed |
| Constitutionality of witness‑immunity statute (G. L. c. 233, § 20E) — facial and as‑applied | Commonwealth: statute is constitutional and prosecutorial grant of immunity is a legitimate tool; safeguards exist (jury instructions, §20I prohibition on sole conviction on immunized testimony) | Vacher: statute benefits only prosecution, gives undue tactical advantage, and aggregated use of immunized witnesses deprived him of a fair trial | Statute constitutional both facially and as applied; use of five immunized witnesses not shown to be prosecutorial misconduct and testimony was corroborated and jury was properly instructed; no unfairness shown |
| Officer's lay‑identification of defendant in convenience‑store surveillance stills | Commonwealth relied on surveillance and other corroborating evidence; officer ID admissible if officer has special familiarity | Vacher: officer lacked unique familiarity; testimony was improper and prejudicial | Admission was erroneous but harmless given other compelling evidence and defendant’s own admissions that he was in the store; no reversible error |
| Failure to give DiGiambattista instruction for partially unrecorded custodial interview | Commonwealth: unrecorded introductory audio was minimal and officers testified to its introductory nature; recorded video and transcript largely captured substance | Vacher: requested cautionary DiGiambattista instruction because audio of first 4 minutes missing | Failure to give instruction was error but harmless; unrecorded portion was introductory, recorded portion captured waiver and substance, and overwhelming other evidence supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (rejecting broad third‑party Fourth Amendment "target standing" under federal law)
- Commonwealth v. Scardamaglia, 410 Mass. 375 (recognizing limited circumstances where target standing under art. 14 might be appropriate)
- Commonwealth v. Manning, 406 Mass. 425 (discusses deterrence rationale for target standing when police use "small fish" to catch "big fish")
- Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (requires jury cautionary instruction when custodial interrogation is not fully audiotaped)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 386 Mass. 345 (defendant lacks standing to challenge grants of immunity to witnesses; Fifth Amendment privilege is personal to witness)