Commonwealth v. Woodbine, 964 N.E.2d 956

Victim Thompson shot multiple times near an apartment building; defendant apprehended nearby with a leg wound.
Defendant was convicted in Superior Court of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
Police interrogated the defendant at a hospital after Miranda warnings; the interrogator recorded only the second portion, not the initial unrecorded portion.
A motion to suppress attacked the unrecorded statements as well as the admissibility of the recorded portion; the trial court suppressed the recorded portion but admitted the unrecorded portion, while the judge below made further rulings about memory refreshment and use at trial.
Key issues include the admissibility of the unrecorded statements, the propriety of refreshing a witness’s memory with suppressed evidence, cross-examination limits, prosecutorial closing arguments, and whether a DiGiambattista-type instruction should have been given.
The court ultimately reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial due to multiple errors affecting the defendant’s rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unrecorded statements should have been suppressed	Keeler gave Miranda warnings; unrecorded statements were voluntary.	Unrecorded statements were obtained in violation of Miranda and tainted through coercion.	No—unrecorded statements were voluntary and properly admitted.
Whether refreshing memory used suppressed material barred trial testimony	Refreshing with suppressed transcript improperly bolstered memory.	Refreshment allowed if foundation shows independent recollection.	Breath of doctrine requires voir dire; here missteps risk miscarriage of justice.
Whether cross-examination limits violated the defendant’s rights	Defense limited cross-exam of Keeler to avoid opening door to suppressed statements.	Cross-examination restrictions hindered testing Keeler’s memory and credibility.	Abuse of discretion; cross-examination restrictions were too limiting.
Whether prosecutor’s closing argument created a miscarriage of justice	Argument relied on tainted memory from Keeler’s testimony.	Prosecutor’s misstatement was improper but not outcome-determinative.	Improper argument contributed to error but not necessarily alone a miscarriage of justice.
Whether a DiGiambattista instruction was required on remand	Instruction should be given when complete recording is not available.	Instruction unnecessary if defendant did not request it.	DiGiambattista instruction required on remand if requested; court notes the absence of a request.

Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423 (Mass. 2004) (prefers recording of custodial interrogations; caution for weighings when incomplete)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (Miranda violation does not taint all subsequent admissible evidence)
Commonwealth v. Ly, 454 Mass. 223 (Mass. 2009) (unwarned statements admissible for impeachment; refreshing memory caveat)
United States v. Riccardi, 174 F.3d 883 (3d Cir. 1999) (memory refresh issues; independent recollection required)
Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375 (Mass. 1995) (memory refresh and admissibility concerns)
Commonwealth v. Leahy, 445 Mass. 481 (Mass. 2005) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 420 Mass. 666 (Mass. 1995) (totality of circumstances in voluntariness analysis)
Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108 (Mass. 1990) (credibility and recitation of details in memory)