Commonwealth v. Woollam
SJC 10709
| Mass. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- In July 2006 John Oliveira, who ran a marijuana stash house, was shot multiple times and died; only Oliveira, defendant Derek Woollam, and another employee (Hodgate) had keys to the studio apartment.
- Woollam worked for Oliveira and had a deteriorating relationship with him after Oliveira discovered text messages suggesting Woollam supplied pills to Oliveira’s girlfriend; they argued the night of the killing.
- Woollam’s car was seen leaving the premises around 1:43 a.m.; Oliveira’s body was found the next afternoon. Woollam removed large quantities of marijuana and disabled cellphones after the discovery.
- Michael Pacheco (cooperating witness) testified Woollam confessed to shooting Oliveira and later burned clothing; Pacheco’s account was corroborated by forensic evidence and recovered burned sneaker remains.
- Woollam was convicted of first‑degree murder (premeditation) and trafficking; he appealed, arguing grand jury irregularities (unauthorized police in the room), ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to move to dismiss indictments and to object to certain evidence), prosecutorial misconduct, and Miranda/voluntariness errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Woollam) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized police presence in grand jury room | Presence was harmless; indictments valid and petit jury convicted beyond a reasonable doubt | Police who investigated were present during grand jury testimony; counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss indictments | No substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice; convictions stand; ineffective assistance claim fails because no prejudice (Holley standard) |
| Admissibility/authentication of cellphone records (call logs, texts, summary chart) | Records are computer‑generated or properly authenticated; texts admissible under state‑of‑mind; summaries proper compilations | Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to hearsay/authentication and to summary chart | Records admissible; objections would have been futile; no prejudice from counsel’s omissions |
| Admission of character‑style testimony (change in demeanor/violence) | Testimony relevant to motive and performance in drug operation; any prejudice was minor given weight of other evidence | Counsel ineffective for not objecting to testimony implying bad character/propensity | Testimony partly prejudicial but not sufficiently so to create substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice given strong corroborating evidence |
| Cooperating witness impeachment / prosecutorial misconduct | Commonwealth disclosed cooperation and jury was informed; witness uncertainty about plea details not materially misleading | Failure to correct witness’s false testimony about guilty pleas and prosecutor’s allowance of false testimony denied fair trial | No substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice; cross‑examination effectively exposed bias; no prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal |
| Admission of statements to police / custody and Miranda | Interview was noncustodial and voluntary; defendant invoked counsel and interview stopped; statements admissible | Statements taken in custodial setting or police failed to scrupulously honor right to counsel; thus inadmissible | Interrogation was noncustodial under objective Groome factors; statements voluntary and properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holley, 476 Mass. 114 (grand jury irregularity requires vacatur only if likely to cause miscarriage of justice)
- United States v. Mechanik, 475 U.S. 66 (indictment defects do not necessarily invalidate a subsequent conviction by petit jury)
- Commonwealth v. Thissell, 457 Mass. 191 (distinguishing computer‑generated records from human‑generated statements for hearsay purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Tassinari, 466 Mass. 340 (state‑of‑mind hearsay exception for victim messages relevant to defendant's motive)
- Commonwealth v. Qualls, 425 Mass. 163 (admission of victim's state of mind to show motive when defendant aware of that state)
- Commonwealth v. Carnes, 457 Mass. 812 (summary charts admissible as accurate compilations of received records)
- Commonwealth v. Montrond, 477 Mass. 127 (prejudice/probative balance for character‑style testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (custody determination—objective factors to assess whether interrogation was custodial)