Com. v. Chhim
| Decision Date | 02 August 2006 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Sokphann CHHIM. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Stewart T. Graham, Jr., for the defendant.
Peter A. D'Angelo, Assistant District Attorney (Kevin L. Ryle, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, SOSMAN, & CORDY, JJ.
The defendant, Sokphann Chhim, was convicted of murder in the first degree of Karlos Dowdye and larceny of a motor vehicle. After conviction, on the defendant's motion pursuant to Mass. R.Crim. P. 25(b)(2), 378 Mass. 896 (1979), the judge reduced the finding of guilty on the indictment for murder in the first degree and ordered that a finding of guilty be entered on the lesser included charge of "involuntary manslaughter — battery." The judge allowed the motion on the ground that such a verdict is "more consonant with justice." See id.; Commonwealth v. Gaulden, 383 Mass. 543, 555-556, 420 N.E.2d 905 (1981). At the same time, the judge denied the defendant's renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty. The Commonwealth appealed the order reducing the verdict and the defendant appealed the denial of his motion for a required finding of not guilty.
We recite the convoluted procedural history of the case. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress letters he had written which were intercepted while he was incarcerated awaiting trial. The motion was denied. Trial proceeded before a different judge (the judge) who, at the close of the Commonwealth's case, allowed the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty on so much of the murder indictment as charged murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, but denied the motion as to so much of the indictment as charged murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.1 The defendant's renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty at the close of all the evidence was denied. After conviction, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. As stated, the defendant then filed a rule 25(b)(2) motion, seeking reduction of the murder verdict, and the judge reduced the verdict to manslaughter. The Commonwealth appealed from the judge's order reducing the verdict. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and the defendant appealed the denial of the motion. The defendant's appeals from his conviction2 and from the denial of his motion for a new trial were consolidated with the Commonwealth's appeal from the allowance of the rule 25(b)(2) motion. In his direct appeal, the defendant raises several issues related to the denial of his motion to suppress and also contends that his motion for a required finding of not guilty on the indictment of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty should have been allowed. His appeal from the order denying his motion for a new trial raises questions concerning the denial of his motion to suppress.3 We granted the Commonwealth's petition for direct appellate review and affirm the judge's denial of the motion for a required finding of not guilty and his order allowing reduction of the verdict to manslaughter.4
1. Facts. We recite the facts in some detail, as the issues with which we are concerned involve the quantum of evidence. Because the key question is the defendant's role in the events, we emphasize the facts that concern his actions. This case involves a fight in Lowell on the late night or early morning of July 13 and 14, 2001, in which the victim was stabbed and beaten to death. It appears that the killing emanated from the fact that the victim's car blocked the route of the automobile in which the defendant was a passenger.
At about 11:45 P.M. on July 13, the defendant was in a Cadillac automobile driven by Pov Hour. Also in the car were Bol Choeurn, Thol Leang, Kimthy Un, a "skinny guy" who was asleep in the back seat during the entire incident, and Oahn Tran, a young woman who was acquainted with all the people in the car except the one who slept through the incident. As the Cadillac drove up Cross Street in Lowell and approached an intersection with School Street, its route was blocked by the victim's black Honda automobile, which was stopped in the middle of the street while the victim was waiting for his friend, Jeremy Richardson, to come out of his house.
Both Richardson and Tran testified as to what happened next. Their versions of the events at the start of the fight do not differ in any material respect. When Richardson came out of his house, he saw the victim and Hour each leaning "half-way out" of their cars and arguing. The victim got out of his car and five or six males emerged from the Cadillac. The group congregated near the Honda and Cadillac. Richardson placed a bag of beer (and other items) on the roof of his Jeep vehicle (parked in front of his house) and stood near the victim as the argument with the men from the Cadillac continued. Hour "poked [the victim] with something sharp;" the victim said "ow" and "aah" and "[w]hat are you doing?", and the argument became even more heated. A man from the Cadillac took a swing at Richardson, who hit the man back, and a general fight broke out. The fight soon separated into two groups. Richardson fought with Un and Leang, and they moved around the corner onto School Street. The victim remained on Cross Street fighting with the defendant, Hour, and Choeurn.
Tran testified that both Hour and Choeurn punched and kicked the victim "[a] lot of times" for "[f]ive minutes, less." During this time, the defendant was "giving [him] a punch, like a few punches." The defendant then "jumped" into the driver's seat of the victim's Honda. As the victim and the other two men continued to fight, they approached the Honda. The victim then stuck his head and upper body into the Honda through the driver's side window, and fought with the defendant. Half of the victim's body, including his chest, was in the car. As the victim and the defendant punched each other inside the Honda, Hour from the left and Choeurn from the right punched the victim from behind. Choeurn then took "out some little blade or a knife" and stabbed the victim. Tran stated that this was the first time she saw Choeurn wield the blade. While the victim leaned inside the Honda, Choeurn stabbed him "on the [right] side ... five [or] less" times. After he had been stabbed approximately five times, the victim backed out of the car window and turned to fight off Choeurn and Hour. The portion of the fight during which the victim was leaning into his car while he was engaged with the defendant lasted "less than two minutes."
Tran stated that as soon as the victim and the defendant stopped fighting and the victim backed out of the car window, the defendant drove away in the Honda. The fight between the victim, Hour, and Choeurn continued with the victim running as Hour and Choeurn persisted in punching, kicking, and stabbing him. The victim circled the Cadillac and then Leang and Un returned from around the corner (where, it will be recalled, they had been engaged in a fight with Richardson). The latter two men joined Hour in punching and kicking the victim. The victim fell to the ground but Choeurn continued stabbing him.5 Hour continued to punch the victim even after the other three ceased their attack, then dragged the victim to the curb, rifled through his pockets, and took his necklace. Leang eventually pulled Hour back to the Cadillac, and the entire group, minus the defendant, drove to Lynn. Tran testified that the incident lasted about twenty minutes, and estimated that the defendant drove away in the Honda approximately six minutes or less before the Cadillac left the scene.
Richardson's account of what he saw of the late stages of the fight differed from Tran's, especially with regard to the point at which the Honda left the scene. After Richardson moved around the corner, he could not see the victim. When the men he was fighting ran back around the corner to Cross Street, Richardson followed "right behind" them. At that point, the victim's car was still in the street and Richardson saw at least two people get into it. The other people were already in the Cadillac, and the two cars left together, with the Cadillac following "[r]ight behind" the victim's Honda, not even a couple of seconds later. Both cars passed Richardson as he approached the victim, who was lying on the ground.
A neighbor who lived near Richardson watched the fight from his apartment porch. The neighbor did not have a clear view of the entire scene, but testified that he saw the Cadillac parked behind the Honda, and that he saw four or five Asian men beating and stabbing a single person on the ground on Cross Street. Some of the men stopped fighting before the others, and at least one of them got into the Honda. He testified that the Honda and Cadillac were at the scene throughout the fight, and that the cars left at the same time. On cross-examination, however, he admitted that he could not actually see the Honda, and that he only saw the Cadillac leave. The police arrived in response to 911 calls, and found the victim bleeding profusely and gasping for air; he died shortly thereafter.
After the stabbing, the defendant returned to an apartment at 436 School Street where he had been earlier that night. The apartment was a few blocks from the scene of the stabbing. The defendant arrived alone in a black Honda and was carrying a brown bag. He offered beer to people there, explaining that he took it from some black people during a fight. The defendant told people at the apartment and on the telephone that "they" had stabbed someone. The defendant had red stains on his white pants, and changed into clean pants he obtained from someone in the apartment. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bonner
...flight supports finding that each confederate was willing and available to assist another if necessary); Commonwealth v. Sokphann Chhim, 447 Mass. 370, 378, 851 N.E.2d 422 (2006) (defendant was "present and available to assist his friends in a continuing assault on the victim or in their ge......
-
Commonwealth v. Grassie
...authority to reduce a jury's verdict, despite the presence of legally sufficient evidence to support it. Commonwealth v. Sokphann Chhim, 447 Mass. 370, 381, 851 N.E.2d 422 (2006). "A judge's discretion to reduce a verdict pursuant to rule 25(b)(2) is appropriately exercised where the weight......
-
Commonwealth v. Castillo
...known created a plain and strong likelihood that death would follow." Id. at 45-46, 971 N.E.2d 1281, quoting Commonwealth v. Chhim, 447 Mass. 370, 377, 851 N.E.2d 422 (2006). There was overwhelming evidence of malice here. The defendant admitted that he believed he was the only person at th......
-
Commonwealth v. Garcia
...strong likelihood that death would follow." Commonwealth v. Szlachta, supra at 45–46, 971 N.E.2d 1281, quoting Commonwealth v. Chhim, 447 Mass. 370, 377, 851 N.E.2d 422 (2006).Here, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that, while Castro was bleeding profusely following the shooting, the de......
-
Shipping up to Boston: the voting of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in nonunanimous criminal cases from 2001-2008.
...D(d1& (Mass. 2006) Pros. D(d1&d2) [P] d2) P Commw. v. Martin, 850 N.E.2d 555 (Mass. 2006) Pros. D(d) P D(d) P Commw. v. Chhim, 851 N.E.2d 422 (Mass. 2006) Def. D P(d) P(d) P(d) Commw. v. Cousin, 873 N.E.2d 742 (Mass. 2007) Pros. P -- P(c) P Commw, v. Considine, 860 N.E.2d 673 (Mass.......