Com. v. Bradshaw
| Decision Date | 12 February 1982 |
| Citation | 431 N.E.2d 880,385 Mass. 244 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Chris Dana BRADSHAW. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Kevin J. Reddington, Brockton, for defendant.
Rosemary Ford, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and WILKINS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.
On August 19, 1977, the defendant, Chris Dana Bradshaw, was convicted of murder in the second degree on an indictment charging murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole. The defendant filed a claim of appeal in the Appeals Court and we granted his motion for direct appellate review.
The body of Kevin T. Kidd was found in a wooded area near the Abington-Whitman town border on the morning of May 29, 1977. Kidd had died from a shotgun wound to the neck. The police were led to the body by Thomas Folsom, an acquaintance of the defendant who became the chief witness for the prosecution in the trial of the defendant for Kidd's murder. Folsom and the defendant were alone with Kidd when he was killed. Both testified at the trial and each accused the other of the murder.
In this appeal, the defendant claims that the trial judge erred in the following respects: (1) by refusing to suppress, as the fruit of an illegal arrest or as the product of an interview conducted in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, a confession made by the defendant while in police custody; (2) by allowing the introduction of evidence of prior misconduct by the defendant and "gruesome photographs," both of which, it is alleged, lacked probative value and were highly prejudicial; and (3) by charging the jury on malice in a way which shifted to the defendant the burden of disproving malice. In addition, the defendant argues that his due process rights were violated by prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument. Finally, the defendant urges this court to exercise its power under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, 1 to order a new trial or to reduce the degree of guilt from murder to manslaughter. There was no error.
The following facts could have been found from the evidence introduced at trial. Folsom and the defendant had known each other for a number of years prior to 1977. On May 28, 1977, Folsom met the defendant at the defendant's home in Plympton. Early in the day Folsom bought a car owned by the defendant. The two men spent most of the day driving around together and stopping at various places in the towns of Abington, Brockton, Whitman, and Plympton. During the course of their travels, they picked up a shotgun and a .303 rifle and purchased a box of twelve gauge shotgun shells using Folsom's firearm identification card. The main business of the day was apparently to collect money allegedly owed to the defendant. The defendant was particularly interested in locating a Richard Alphonse, who he claimed owed him money. Angry at finding Alphonse neither at home nor at work, the defendant took some tools belonging to Alphonse and vandalized one of his trucks. When he later encountered Alphonse, the defendant threatened to kill him if he did not pay his debt. Alphonse testified to statements by the defendant reflecting a general edginess and a sense that he was being abused and taken advantage of by "everybody."
On the same day, the defendant was also involved in several confrontations with William Santiano, his sister Grace's boyfriend. These incidents stemmed from the defendant's belief that Santiano had stolen two tires which were missing from the defendant's garage. There was testimony that the defendant threatened to kill Santiano at three different points during the day. Santiano himself testified that on one of these occasions the defendant pointed an empty shotgun at him, pulled the trigger, and threatened to "get" him "before the night is over." At another point the defendant located Santiano's parked automobile and fired at it, first with the shotgun and, when that weapon misfired, with the rifle.
The defendant stopped by his parents' home three times during the day. During one visit he had an argument with his sister Grace and slapped her. During a later visit he had a confrontation with his mother and, according to Folsom, pointed the then empty shotgun at her. The defendant's mother denied being threatened by her son, but testified that after he left she called the police because Santiano had told her the defendant had a gun and she "was concerned that someone might get hurt."
During the afternoon of the day of the murder Folsom met one Glenn Carrico and gave him the rifle and shotgun, asking him to take the weapons to Folsom's apartment. Later in the afternoon the defendant and Folsom drove to Abington where the defendant got out near some railroad tracks. He asked Folsom to retrieve the shotgun and rifle. Folsom left for the apartment. The defendant testified that he got out at the railroad tracks because he needed some time alone to "coo(l) down" and did not want the police "coming down there, shooting (him) up when (he had) ... no weapons or anything."
Shortly after 6 P.M. Kevin Kidd, the murder victim, arrived at Folsom's apartment accompanied by Kenny Sprague. Kidd and Folsom had a confrontation concerning some money which Kidd had given Folsom to buy drugs. Kidd wanted the money back and Folsom claimed it had been stolen. There was testimony to the effect that Folsom believed Kidd had stolen the money. Kidd was carrying a .357 magnum revolver and threatened Folsom with it. Folsom's description of this scene was corroborated at trial by Sprague and Kathy Carrico (Carrico's wife) who lived in the same apartment as Folsom. Folsom eventually retrieved the defendant's shotgun from the apartment and, driving his own car, left with Kidd in the passenger seat. Folsom told Kidd that he was delivering the gun to a friend who would get Kidd's money.
Folsom and Kidd drove to the railroad tracks where the defendant was waiting. Folsom gave Kidd sixty dollars during the trip in partial payment of his debt. Folsom testified that Kidd's gun was hidden under his jacket on the floor of the car. When they found the defendant Folsom gave him the shotgun and made gestures warning him that Kidd was armed. According to Folsom, the defendant indicated that he understood the warning about Kidd's having a weapon. The defendant meanwhile loaded the shotgun with two shells and shot one into the ground. Folsom then asked the defendant if he would return the $150 Folsom had paid him for the car so that Folsom could pay Kidd. The defendant was agreeable.
At this point, the testimony of Folsom and the defendant diverge. According to Folsom, he had just started the car when the defendant, standing outside the vehicle, pointed the shotgun through a window and shot Kidd in the neck. When Folsom asked why he had shot Kidd, the defendant claimed that he had seen Kidd loading his gun and was afraid Kidd would kill them. Folsom testified that the defendant insisted that Folsom help remove the body to a drainage ditch and clean out the car. Folsom also discharged Kidd's gun and took the sixty dollars from Kidd's hand. Folsom and the defendant disposed of the shotgun in Hull and the defendant called his father collect to establish an alibi. They then drove to the defendant's home, where they cleaned the car more thoroughly and disposed of Kidd's gun and other evidence. At the defendant's direction Folsom also called Kathy Carrico and asked for Kidd in order to strengthen the alibi.
The defendant testified in his own defense. He claimed that when Folsom handed him the shotgun at the railroad tracks in Abington it was already loaded, that he asked why Folsom had brought a loaded shotgun with him, and that he handed the gun back to Folsom. The defendant testified that he got into the car and offered Kidd a beer, and that when he turned around to get the beer from the back seat, he heard an explosion and saw the wound in Kidd's neck. Folsom told the defendant he had killed Kidd because Kidd had stolen money from him. He then threatened to kill the defendant and his family if the defendant told anyone about the incident. The defendant also gave testimony damaging to his own case. He admitted hitting his sister and shooting at Santiano's car. The defendant also testified that on the drive to Hull to dispose of the murder weapon he noticed a police cruiser behind them and told Folsom "if the cops come over here we're going to have to waste them."
In addition to testimony concerning the events of May 28-29, Police Chief Angus of the Plympton police department testified that four or five weeks earlier, the defendant had voluntarily turned over two rifles and a shotgun to police officers who had come to his apartment in response to a telephone call from the defendant. There had been a family argument and apparently the defendant had told the officers that he felt it best for the safety of all concerned that he turn the guns over to the police. After one week or so the defendant called to ask for the guns and they were returned to him by the department.
The circumstances of the defendant's arrest for Kidd's murder are important to the resolution of several of the defendant's claims of error. After Folsom and the defendant separated the evening of the murder, Folsom went to see his uncle in Holbrook. He related the events of the day to his uncle and later consulted with his grandfather. Sometime before 10:30 the next morning (the Sunday of Memorial Day weekend), either Folsom or one of these relatives called the Whitman police station. Folsom was driven to the station by an Officer Robert Woods and was interviewed there by Lieutenant John Travers. After he led these two officers to the body, Folsom was taken to the Abington police station. The Abington police then called State police Detective-Lieutenant Frank Joyce, who was assigned to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Bourgeois
... ... Freeman, supra 352 Mass. at 564, 227 N.E.2d 3. 25 ... [391 Mass. 886] As in Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 277, 431 N.E.2d 880 (1982), "most of the prosecutor's remarks were grounded in the evidence and the few extravagant remarks were responsive to equally extravagant defense tactics in final argument. The jury could be expected to take both arguments with a grain of salt ... ...
-
People v. Houston
... ... 1078, 106 S.Ct. 1452, 89 L.Ed.2d 711.) ... 8 See also State v. Jackson (La.1974) 303 So.2d 734, 736-737 ... 9 See also Com. v. Sherman (1983) 389 Mass. 287, 450 N.E.2d 566, 570-571; Commonwealth v. Mahnke (1975) 368 Mass. 662, 335 N.E.2d 660, 678, cert. den. (1976) 425 .S. 959, 96 S.Ct. 1740, 48 L.Ed.2d 204; compare Com. v. Bradshaw (1982) 385 Mass. 244, 431 N.E.2d 880, 893; Com. v. Hooks (1978) 375 Mass. 284, 376 N.E.2d 857, 864 ... 10 "To pass up an abstract offer to call ... ...
-
Com. v. Shipps
...of the police misconduct. Brown v. Illinois, supra 422 U.S. at 603-604, 95 S.Ct. at 2261-2262. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 258, 431 N.E.2d 880 (1982); Commonwealth v. Sylvia, 380 Mass. 180, 183, 402 N.E.2d 489 (1980). We turn to the defendant's statements with these ......
-
Com. v. Santiago
...373 N.E.2d 951; whether the jury would be able to sort out the excessive claims made by the prosecutor, see Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 277, 431 N.E.2d 880 (1982) ("The jury could be expected to take both arguments with a grain of salt"); and whether the Commonwealth's case was......
-
Cross-Examination of Detective Who Obtained Confession
...were not in custody when they arrived at the station, the police did not violate G.L. c. 276, § 33A. Id. Commonwealth v. Bradshaw , 385 Mass. 244, 266 (1982) is inapposite. The only evidence of a violation of G.L. c. 276, § 33A came during the defendant’s testimony late in the trial. This C......
-
Hearing thy neighbor: the doctrine of attenuation and illegal eavesdropping by private citizens.
...by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.'" Damiano, 828 N.E.2d at 518 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 431 N.E.2d 880, 890 (Mass. (23) Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 484 (finding statements derived from government's illegal acts admissible when attenuation shown). (......