Com. v. Silva, 86-722

• Citation: 25 Mass.App.Ct. 220,517 N.E.2d 182
• Decision Date: 26 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-722,86-722
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. James E. SILVA, Jr.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 182

517 N.E.2d 182

25 Mass.App.Ct. 220

COMMONWEALTH v. James E. SILVA, Jr.

No. 86-722.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts,

Bristol.

Argued April 21, 1987.

Decided Dec. 31, 1987.

Further Appellate Review Denied Feb. 26, 1988.

Thomas C. Federico, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Boston, for defendant.

Before DREBEN, QUIRICO and SMITH, JJ.

QUIRICO, Justice.

On October 18, 1979, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder (Indictment No. 4000), kidnapping (Indictment No. 4001), and one count of larceny of a motor vehicle (Indictment No. 4002). The trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and imposed concurrent terms of three to five years for each of the other convictions. ¹ The Supreme Judicial Court heard the defendant's appeal and affirmed the convictions in Commonwealth v. Silva, 388 Mass. 495, 447 N.E.2d 646 (1983).

In October of 1984, Silva filed a pro se motion for a new trial. See Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(b) & (c), 378 Mass. 900-902 (1979). A judge of the Superior Court appointed a lawyer from the Committee for Public Counsel Services to represent the defendant in the matter. ² The appointed counsel then filed a "supplement" to the defendant's pro se motion and a memorandum of law in support thereof. The trial judge having retired, another judge of the Superior Court, after holding a hearing thereon, denied the motion and supplement thereto on December 4, 1985, without any accompanying memorandum or written decision. The defendant's appeal from that denial is now before this court, and we affirm the denial.

The facts of the case, as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court in 388 Mass. at 497-500, 447 N.E.2d 646, were largely derived from the defendant's own pretrial statements which were in turn substantiated by his trial testimony. On January 12, 1979, the defendant came upon an automobile parked next to a Norton pharmacy with its engine running. Id. at 499, 447 N.E.2d 646. He jumped into the vehicle intending to take a "joy ride" and then, as he shifted into gear, noticed there was an elderly woman sitting in the passenger seat. Id. at 499, 500, 447 N.E.2d 646. The defendant "panicked" and drove off. Ibid. The woman, Diane Dion, told him she suffered from high blood pressure and had just returned from a doctor's office. Id. at 499, 447 N.E.2d 646. ³ As the defendant drove through the grounds of the Paul A. Dever School in Norton, the victim slumped forward in her seat and passed out. Ibid. After unsuccessfully attempting to resuscitate the victim, the defendant put her in the back seat of the automobile and later transferred her to the trunk. Ibid. He testified that he thought Mrs. Dion was dead. Id. at 499, 500, 447 N.E.2d 646. He drove the vehicle to a cart path on the grounds of the Dever School and, with the victim still shut up in the trunk, set the automobile on fire. Id. at 499, 447 N.E.2d 646. ⁴ The defendant remained nearby until the automobile was totally engulfed in flames. Ibid. A doctor testified at trial that the victim was alive when the fire started and had died as a result of the fire. Id. at 497, 447 N.E.2d 646.

When present counsel filed the "supplement" to the defendant's earlier pro se motion for a new trial, he based the claim for relief on trial counsel's allegedly ineffective representation of the defendant on two occasions during the course of the trial. Those occasions were when trial counsel failed to object to (1) the judge's statement to the jury that he did not believe that they could return a "not guilty verdict", and (2) the judge's omission of an instruction that the defendant could not be convicted of felony-murder unless the jury found that the underlying felonies involved circumstances demonstrating the defendant's conscious disregard of the risk to human life. The defendant, through his present counsel, contends that on each of those two occasions trial counsel's failure to object and otherwise protect his rights, amounted to "serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention--behavior of counsel ... falling measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer...." Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96, 315 N.E.2d 878 (1974). We shall discuss those two issues separately, in the order in which they were argued in present counsel's brief, and state our basis for affirming the judge's denial of the motion for a new trial. ⁵

1. The defendant had been indicted for first degree murder. The defendant himself admitted that he had committed acts which warranted at least a verdict of manslaughter, and his obvious trial strategy was to attempt to persuade the jury to return a verdict of that lesser crime. Just prior to the judge's instructions, trial counsel strenuously beseeched the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter. He commenced his closing argument by stating, "There isn't any question that [the defendant], on that tragic day, set into motion a chain of events that led to Mrs. Dion being burned in the trunk of that car" and continued by exhorting the jury, "[F]ind him guilty of the correct crime." In the course of reviewing the possible verdicts on the murder indictment, he stated, "Now, we come to the next type of crime, which I submit to you is what [the defendant] is guilty of in this case if you listen to what the judge tells you. He is guilty of involuntary manslaughter," and went on to ask that the jury "[f]ind him guilty of the correct charge, and that charge is, he is guilty of manslaughter." Trial counsel concluded by urging, "Do what you have to do; and I'm asking you now that, if you listen to [the judge], I think you will agree with me that [the defendant] who took that life tragically is guilty of manslaughter and not murder."

The final arguments of trial counsel and the prosecutor were followed by the judge's instructions to the jury, during the course of which the judge stated: "The jury always has the province to make its own conclusion in spite of the evidence and conceivably to enter a not guilty verdict. I don't see how on the evidence there could be such a verdict--a complete vindication but, however, that's for the jury to determine." Trial counsel made no objection to that instruction.

Considering the quoted statement of the judge, standing alone, it might be argued that it constituted an invasion of the exclusive province of the jury in judging the credibility and weight of the evidence and finding the facts of the case. See United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 572-573, 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1355, 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977); Commonwealth v. Cote, 5 Mass.App.Ct. 365, 369-370, 363 N.E.2d 276 (1977). On the other hand, it could be argued that if the statement were considered in context, it was consistent with the position which trial counsel had espoused throughout the trial and in his closing arguments as the theory or strategy of the defense, and that the defendant was not deprived of an available defense but rather was given the benefit of the only conceivable defense available on the facts admitted by the defendant. Commonwealth v. Sellon, 380 Mass. 220, 228, 402 N.E.2d 1329 (1980). Commonwealth v. Bertrand, 385 Mass. 356, 367-368, 432 N.E.2d 78 (1982). Commonwealth v. Sielicki, 391 Mass. 377, 382, 461 N.E.2d 1210 (1984).

In any event, it would serve no useful purpose to continue to identify or to discuss arguments on either side of the present issue because in this particular case there are circumstances which compel us to affirm the judge's denial of the motion for new trial insofar as the motion was based on the present claims of error in the trial judge's instruction and of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object thereto. It is undisputed that trial counsel made no objection to the instruction when it was given. It is also undisputed that the defendant's first appellate counsel made no attempt to raise the issue during the appeal which resulted in the decision published in 388 Mass. 495, 447 N.E.2d 646 (1983). The defendant has made no claim that first appellate counsel was incompetent or that he rendered ineffective assistance to the defendant in the prosecution of that appeal.

It has long been and is still "the unbroken practice both under the statute [and now under rules of practice] and at common law respecting motions for new trial not to examine anew the original trial for the detection of errors which might have been raised by exceptions taken at the trial." Commonwealth v. Dascalakis, 246 Mass. 12, 24, 140 N.E. 470 (1923). Common- v. Underwood, 358 Mass. 506, 510-511, 265 N.E.2d 577 (1970). "Although a trial judge may not be compelled by a motion for a new trial to review and reconsider questions of law which could have been raised at the trial, he nevertheless has the power to do so at his discretion. If he does so, his rulings on the questions may be presented to this court on appeal or exceptions." Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 364 Mass. 211, 229, 303 N.E.2d 338 (1973). Commonwealth v. Blondin, 324 Mass. 564, 566-567, 87 N.E.2d 455 (1949). There is nothing in this case to indicate that the judge who denied the motion for a new trial either intended to exercise, or exercised, his discretion in favor of considering questions which could have been, but were not, raised at the trial. Commonwealth v. Venuti, 315 Mass. 255, 261-262, 52 N.E.2d 392 (1943). Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 364 Mass. at 230-231, 303 N.E.2d 338.

2. The trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the Massachusetts law of felony-murder as it stood at the time of the trial. Commonwealth v. Silva, 388 Mass. at 504-505, 447 N.E.2d 646 ("judge's charge was free of error when it was given"). Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492, 502-507, 436 N.E.2d 400 (1982). Nearly three years after the trial, the Supreme Judicial Court in Commonwealth v. Matchett, supra enunciated a new standard for instructions on common law felony-murder. In Matche...