35 N.E.3d 366
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Two homeless men were murdered in May 2005; bodies found in Bare Cove Park; one victim's hand was later recovered separately. James Winquist was indicted in 2007; co‑defendant Eric Snow later died in jail before trial. Winquist was convicted of two counts of second‑degree murder (joint venture theory).
- Core factual evidence included eyewitness testimony from Kelly Burgess that she saw Winquist and Snow soon after the killings with bloody clothing and bats, Burgess observed Snow burying a human hand, and multiple admissions by Winquist to associates that he and Snow committed the killings.
- A letter from Snow to Winquist (written from prison two years after the murders) said, “You made your bones,” and was found in Winquist’s bedroom during a warrant search; the Commonwealth offered the letter as a coconspirator/joint‑venture statement and as evidence of a subsequent joint venture to silence witnesses.
- Winquist moved (midtrial) for a Franks hearing, arguing material falsehoods or reckless omissions in the affidavit supporting the Weymouth search warrant (which led to discovery of Snow’s letter); the judge denied the renewed Franks motion.
- Other contested matters: propriety of prosecutor’s closing argument relying on post‑crime statements (telephone calls) to infer shared intent; and whether Burgess’s cross‑examination answers required a sua sponte competency hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Winquist's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Burgess’s testimony about Snow saying “he made his bones” immediately after the killings | Statement was made during the joint venture and in furtherance of it; admissible as coconspirator/joint‑venture hearsay exception | Statement inadmissible because Burgess was not a conspirator and presence of third party defeats exception | Admitted: Burgess was a friend who aided in concealment; third‑party presence did not bar coconspirator exception |
| Admissibility of Snow’s 2‑year‑old prison letter saying “You made your bones” | Letter admissible either as coconspirator statement during a continued concealment phase or as evidence of a new, distinct joint venture to silence witnesses | Letter too remote; outside pendency of original conspiracy; prisoner’s incarceration and passage of time negate coconspirator rule | Admitted: court upheld admission on alternative ground—sufficient independent evidence of a new joint venture to silence witnesses (Winquist’s attempt to go to Burgess’s residence to burn it) |
| Denial of renewed Franks hearing on search warrant affidavit (basis for seizure of letter) | Affiant relied on multiple sources; no substantial showing that affidavit contained material falsehoods made intentionally or recklessly | Courage’s trial testimony contradicted affidavit; this created a substantial showing requiring a Franks hearing | Denied: defendant failed to make the required substantial preliminary showing; affiant had basis to believe statements and Courage was unreliable |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument referencing Winquist’s later telephone statements to infer intent/shared culpability | Argument drew fair inferences from recorded statements (e.g., "mail her a hand") probative of shared intent and participation | Improperly used post‑crime statements/conduct to prove premeditation and intent beyond permissible scope | Affirmed: prosecutor’s inference was fair and within bounds; post‑crime boasts were probative of shared intent and participation |
| Competency of Burgess as witness; whether judge should sua sponte hold competency hearing | Burgess understood truth/falsehood; cross‑examination inconsistencies did not show incompetency | Cross‑examination showed confusion and evasiveness; judge should have sua sponte assessed competency | No abuse of discretion: Burgess demonstrated understanding; judge properly declined to order sua sponte competency hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1 (discusses coconspirator/joint‑venture hearsay exception and testimonial issue)
- Commonwealth v. Bongarzone, 390 Mass. 326 (reliability rationale for coconspirator statements; recognition of separate/new joint venture)
- Commonwealth v. Bright, 463 Mass. 421 (conspiracy duration; concealment phase may be part of continuous joint venture)
- Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502 (statements weeks after crime admissible where they further concealment and identify killers)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (requires substantial preliminary showing of material falsehood or reckless disregard in affidavit to trigger hearing)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements and confrontation clause framework)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (limits on admitting codefendant statements under Confrontation Clause)
- Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (limits of extending conspiracy indefinitely by post‑crime concealment)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 463 Mass. 273 (discusses effect of arrest/imprisonment on reliability of coconspirator statements)