Commonwealth v. Valentin, 474 Mass. 301

Background

Defendant shot and killed Nettie Becht and Luis Diaz after seeing them near Becht’s apartment; he fired ten shots and both victims died of torso gunshot wounds. He later confessed at the scene and during a recorded interview, stating alcohol made him "go crazy."
The Commonwealth charged first‑degree murder on theories of premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty; defendant’s primary defense was intoxication reducing culpability.
Police recovered the murder weapon (a loaded 9mm) from a closet in the defendant’s living room and DNA evidence linked the scene, weapon, and defendant’s shoes to Becht’s blood. A separate cache of lawfully owned firearms and a buck knife was found locked in a bedroom safe.
The Commonwealth introduced testimony and photos of the other weapons and ammunition (which defendant did not challenge at trial). Defense elicited that those weapons were lawfully possessed and stored in a safe.
At trial the prosecutor argued premeditation and cruelty (citing lying in wait and victim begging), and invited jurors to use common experience regarding intoxication. The judge denied defendant’s request for a voluntary‑manslaughter (reasonable provocation) instruction but gave intoxication instructions; during a later summary the judge used the disfavored phrasing that the jury must “find” intoxication.
On appeal the defendant challenged (1) admission of evidence of other lawful weapons, (2) portions of the prosecutor’s closing argument, (3) denial of a reasonable‑provocation manslaughter instruction, and (4) the judge’s “finding” language on intoxication. The SJC affirmed the convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of evidence of other weapons	Weapons evidence was relevant to premeditation/cruelty because it showed familiarity with firearms	Ownership of other lawfully stored weapons was irrelevant and prejudicial propensity evidence	Evidence was not relevant and should not have been admitted, but error was harmless given overwhelming evidence against defendant
Prosecutor's closing argument	Prosecutor’s characterizations (lying in wait, victim begging, appeals to common experience) were fair inferences from the evidence	Argument improperly injected prosecutor’s personal view, suggested facts not in evidence, and asked jurors to put themselves in defendant’s place	No error: remarks were fair inferences, proper responses to defense, or permissible appeals to common sense; rhetorical flourish requesting guilty verdict was acceptable
Voluntary manslaughter instruction (reasonable provocation)	Evidence that defendant still viewed Becht as his girlfriend and warned her could support heat‑of‑passion instruction	Facts showed relationship had ended hours before and defendant merely saw Becht walking with Diaz; no reasonable provocation or lack of cooling‑off period	Denial of instruction was correct—no reasonable provocation could be found on these facts
Jury instruction language on intoxication ("find" intoxication)	"Find" phrasing shifted burden to defendant and risked unconstitutional burden shifting	Jury instructions as a whole placed burden on Commonwealth; intoxication is a subsidiary fact, not a malice‑negating complete defense	No reversible error: although phrasing is disfavored, the charge as a whole properly placed burden on Commonwealth and did not impermissibly shift proof burden

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 463 Mass. 116 (discussion of inadmissibility where unrelated firearms could not have been used and risk of propensity inference)
Commonwealth v. McGee, 467 Mass. 141 (unfair‑prejudice risk from weapons evidence and proper relevancy analysis)
Commonwealth v. Tassinari, 466 Mass. 340 (contrast where defendant selected a weapon from multiple available weapons supports premeditation inference)
Commonwealth v. Toro, 395 Mass. 354 (harmlessness standard where improperly admitted evidence is insignificant given strong proof)
Commonwealth v. Avecedo, 446 Mass. 435 (standard for when a voluntary‑manslaughter instruction on reasonable provocation is required)
Commonwealth v. Benson, 453 Mass. 90 (limits on provocation where victim’s conduct does not trigger sudden loss of self‑control)
Commonwealth v. Petetabella, 459 Mass. 177 (disfavored "finding" language on subsidiary facts acceptable if charge as whole preserves Commonwealth's burden)