Com. v. Brown

Decision Date29 August 2007
Docket NumberSJC-09147.
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH v. Eric BROWN.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

James L. Sultan, Boston, for the defendant.

Donna Jalbert Patalano, Special Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & CORDY, JJ.

CORDY, J.

During the early hours of June 16, 1996, Athos Oliveira and Thomas Meyer, while walking separately along Appleton Street in the South End section of Boston, encountered an assailant fitting the description of the defendant, Eric Brown. Each was shot at close range with a shotgun. Both men died almost instantly from severe wounds to the face and neck. Ten days later, police in Lincoln stopped an automobile driven by Brown. Inside the car they found the shotgun that had fired the spent shell casings found near the victims' bodies.

After his arrest, Brown underwent extensive psychiatric evaluation and spent several years at Bridgewater State Hospital (Bridgewater) before finally being found competent to stand trial in March, 2001. A jury found him guilty on two indictments charging murder in the first degree, each on the theory of deliberate premeditation.1

On appeal, Brown contends that he was incompetent to stand trial and that the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown also assigns legal error to various aspects of his trial. These include claims that (1) the prosecutor improperly introduced evidence of Brown's purported postarrest silence, (2) the judge improperly failed to hold a voir dire to determine the voluntariness of certain statements made by Brown, (3) the judge improperly declined to give the jury an instruction on intoxication, (4) the judge improperly excluded from evidence certain Bridgewater medical records, and (5) the judge improperly and systematically excluded students from the jury. Finally, Brown seeks relief under G.L. c. 278, § 33E, noting particularly the extensive evidence that he suffered a mental disease at the time of the killings. We affirm.

1. Procedural background. On August 5, 1996, a grand jury returned four indictments against Brown, charging him with murder in the first degree for the killings of Athos Oliveira and Thomas Meyer, G.L. c. 265, § 1; unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon, G.L. c. 269, § 10(a); and unlawful possession of ammunition, G.L. c. 269, § 10(h).

After his arrest, Brown was sent to Bridgewater for evaluation pursuant to G.L. c. 123, § 18(a).2 Following a hearing held on April 9, 1998, he was found not competent to stand trial and committed to Bridgewater under G.L. c. 123, § 16(b).3 This commitment was periodically renewed by various judges in the Superior Court. In January, 2001, approximately two months prior to the scheduled trial date, a report was filed with the court pursuant to G.L. c. 123, § 15(a),4 concluding that Brown's symptoms were "under good control due to his compliance with his medication regimen and treatment at Bridgewater State Hospital," but that he could be "at risk for becoming more symptomatic as his trial approaches." The judge brought Brown into court and held a hearing at which he concluded that Brown was competent to stand trial.5 See G.L. c. 123, § 15(d). As a precaution, the judge ordered that a further evaluation of Brown, pursuant to § 15(a), be performed by the court clinical psychologist on March 7, 2001, the day that the trial was scheduled to begin.

On March 7, defense counsel submitted to the court a report of a private forensic psychiatrist stating that Brown was no longer compliant with his medication regimen and was not competent to stand trial.6 The judge then ordered that Brown be further evaluated by the court clinical psychologist, who also opined that Brown was incompetent to stand trial. The judge continued the trial and ordered that Brown be evaluated by the Commonwealth's psychologist. That psychologist's evaluation report was filed on March 9, and a competency hearing was held over four days during the period March 12 through March 21.7 At the competency hearing, a psychiatrist retained by the Commonwealth opined that Brown "ha[d] the sufficient ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that he ha[d] a rational as well as a factual understanding of the court proceedings" and that therefore he was competent to stand trial. The defense called three witnesses, including a psychiatrist who testified that Brown was not competent to stand trial.8

The judge issued a written ruling finding Brown competent to stand trial on March 23, 2001.9 On that same day, the trial began. After four weeks of trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all four indictments. Brown was sentenced to consecutive terms of life on the murder convictions and to from two and one-half to five years for unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon to be served concurrently with one of the life sentences.10 The ammunition conviction was placed on file with Brown's consent.

2. Facts. Based on the evidence at trial, the jury were warranted in finding the following facts. On the morning of Saturday, June 15, 1996, Brown asked his friend Dwight Bobbitt, a security guard who possessed a firearms identification card, to purchase a shotgun for him.11 Brown told Bobbitt that he needed the gun "for business." Brown gave Bobbitt $280 cash,12 and the two men boarded a bus to travel from the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston to the Bob Smith's Sporting Goods store in downtown Boston. Brown told Bobbitt that he would look at the guns, then point at the one he wanted and say "that's the freshest, that's the one I want."

When the two arrived at the store, they went to the gun department. As Bobbitt looked at a particular shotgun, Brown told him, "that's the freshest." Brown walked away, and Bobbitt approached the salesman and purchased the gun, a "Mossberg 500" twenty-gauge shotgun with an eighteen inch barrel,13 along with one box of ammunition,14 at a total cost of $268.21. Brown and Bobbitt then took a taxicab back to Roxbury. When they parted so that Bobbitt could go to work, Brown took the shotgun and ammunition with him. Bobbitt told Brown to remove the serial number from the gun with a file because he would report the gun stolen in two weeks.15

When Bobbitt returned home from work after midnight, he found Brown in the company of two friends outside Brown's residence in Roxbury. Brown brought the shotgun outside, fired it into the air three or four times, and picked up the spent shell casings. Brown then went inside, came back outside, the gun into the air again, and then went back inside. Responding to a call reporting shots fired, two Boston police officers arrived at Brown's residence at about 2 A.M. When questioned by police, Bobbitt and the others denied having heard any shots. The officers then left. Fifteen minutes later, Brown came outside again. He was wearing a thigh-length green jacket and black boots. Brown pulled the shotgun out from under his jacket and again fired it into the air three times. He then left on foot, heading in the direction of the South End.

It was warm, and despite the early hour, people on Appleton Street were outside socializing and walking about. Among them was Athos Oliveira, who had driven to the South End from his home in Somerville. At approximately 3:30 A.M., a man approached Oliveira in front of 106 Appleton Street, pointed a shotgun at him, and fired twice. The first shot grazed Oliveira's head, taking off his cap and shredding its bill. The second shot was a direct hit to Oliveira's face and neck. He was killed almost instantly.

The man then ran down Appleton Street toward the intersection with Dartmouth Street. A group of men getting out of an automobile parked along Dartmouth Street saw the shooter approach them, hesitate, then continue down Appleton Street. The assailant soon encountered Thomas Meyer, who was standing across from 131 Appleton Street. Meyer was dressed in a black tuxedo because he had attended a friend's wedding reception in the Back Bay section of Boston earlier that evening. The assailant fired a single shot into the back of Meyer's head, killing him instantly.16 He then continued down Appleton Street, heading toward West Canton Street.

Witnesses who observed the man who shot Oliveira and Meyer described him as a black male with Afro-style hair wearing a thigh-length green jacket. This general description matched that of Brown. Police investigators responding to the scene also found several spent shotgun shell casings near where the bodies of Oliveira and Meyer lay.17 A ballistics expert later determined that all of the shells had been fired from the same shotgun.

It is unclear where the assailant went after he shot Meyer and continued down Appleton Street. The next witness to report seeing Eric Brown was Bobbitt. They met in front of Brown's residence sometime on the morning of Sunday, June 16, 1996. Bobbitt asked him if he had heard about the killings in the South End that had occurred earlier that morning. Brown said, "No. Why you asking me. Do I look like that type?" Bobbitt testified that during this exchange Brown did not appear to have any problem understanding what he was saying; nor did Bobbitt have trouble understanding Brown.

Ten days later, at approximately 3:25 A.M. on June 26, 1996, a police officer in Lincoln observed a van driving erratically along an otherwise quiet two-lane road. The officer stopped and approached the van. Brown was in the driver's seat, alone in the vehicle. Music was blaring from the radio. Without prompting, Brown presented the officer with an expired Rhode Island driver's license.18 Brown would not, however, make eye contact with the officer, nor did he respond to a request that he turn down the radio's volume. When asked where he was coming from, Brown told the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Com. v. Robidoux
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 4 December 2007
    ......On this basis, the judge found that Robidoux had been competent to stand trial. This determination is entitled to substantial deference because the judge had the opportunity personally to evaluate Robidoux. Commonwealth v. Brown, 449 Mass. 747, 759, 872 N.E.2d 711 (2007). .         "Because the judge's finding of competency was supported by the evidence [considered in connection with a motion for a new trial], a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice does not exist concerning when and how the ......
  • Commonwealth v. Waweru
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 31 July 2018
    ......See Commonwealth v. Brown , 449 Mass. 747, 767, 872 N.E.2d 711 (2007) (trial judge's finding that statement was voluntary was supported by testimony that defendant did not ......
  • Commonwealth v. Mccowen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 10 December 2010
    ......Brown, 449 Mass. 747, 766–768, 872 N.E.2d 711 (2007) (where defendant raised claim of mental illness, finding of voluntariness supported by testimony ......
  • Commonwealth v. Concepcion
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 16 March 2021
    ......14 See 164 N.E.3d 856 Commonwealth v. Brown , 466 Mass. 676, 689-690, 1 N.E.3d 259 (2013), S . C ., 474 Mass. 576, 52 N.E.3d 137 (2016). Having shot the victim on October 17, 2012, the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT