Com. v. Van Liew

• Decision Date: 14 January 1983
• Citation: 14 Mass.App.Ct. 662,441 N.E.2d 796
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Alfred R. VAN LIEW.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

Page 796

441 N.E.2d 796

14 Mass.App.Ct. 662

COMMONWEALTH v. Alfred R. VAN LIEW.

Appeals Court of Massachusetts Plymouth.

Argued Oct. 18, 1982.

Decided Nov. 10, 1982.

Further Appellate Review Denied Jan. 14, 1983.

Willie J. Davis, Boston, for defendant.

Rosemary Ford, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

Before PERRETTA, CUTTER and KASS, JJ.

CUTTER, Justice.

This is an appeal from convictions in the Superior Court for the crimes of second degree murder and unlawfully carrying a firearm. We state below in detail the evidence only so far as necessary to deal with the issues argued.

Van Liew worked as bartender in a Brockton barroom. On October 28, 1980, he was observed by Anthony McNeil, who had entered the barroom about 4 P.M., to pull a gun from beneath the bar and to fire at least two shots through the back door. Then about fifteen people were present, not including the victim, Raymond Howard. Van Liew, at the end of a pool game, also "jokingly" had broken a pool stick approximately as McNeil had entered. Van Liew told McNeil that he was depressed, he was having "problems with his old lady" who "was leaving," and he "owed ... some money." Howard came in about 5 P.M. and sat down on a bar stool next to McNeil. About half an hour thereafter another witness, Crystal Walker, entered the barroom and sat down on a desk on the other side of McNeil. Howard offered to buy her and McNeil a drink and was about to pay when McNeil observed Van Liew, behind the bar, pointing his pistol at Howard's chest for "a couple of seconds." The gun went off and many of the then approximately twenty-five to forty people in the barroom left very promptly. Howard said, "I'm shot .... Al. Why did you shoot me?" Van Liew (after removing the shells and dropping them behind the bar) handed the revolver to McNeil and told him "to get rid" of it. McNeil then departed with Crystal Walker, taking the revolver with him. Miss Walker later hid the gun. Thereafter McNeil and Miss Walker "showed ... [the police] where it was."

No testimony disclosed any argument between Van Liew and Howard at the bar except that one witness (Earl Levy) heard Howard say to Van Liew, "You better pay Mirna her five dollars back .... [Y]ou know how those sisters are when you owe them money." Levy heard Van Liew reply (with some anger), "Oh, man, shut up. I know I owe her the five dollars." ¹ Miss Walker at trial testified that she had observed Van Liew pull the trigger although she admitted that earlier she had told the police that the gun just went off. After the shooting, Van Liew was heard to say, "I didn't know it was loaded."

Howard was put on the floor and Van Liew began to administer "mouth-to-mouth resuscitation." The police soon arrived. Howard was taken to a hospital. Van Liew was taken there also, and there admitted to the police (after receiving Miranda warnings) that he had shot Howard. Howard died at the hospital. ²

1. Prior to admitting in evidence a statement made shortly before October 28, the day of the shooting, by Howard to his wife, Cynthia, there was an extended hearing on voir dire. The trial judge ruled (subject to appropriate objections) that the statement was admissible (see note 4, infra ). Before the jury, Cynthia Howard was allowed to testify that, during the weekend prior to October 28, she had been told by Howard that he had "spotted ... Van Liew and a young lady, Judy Monteiro, ... in the vicinity of the Holiday Inn at the Westgate Lounge." He also said to his wife that he had told Van Liew that if the latter "did not pay him [Howard] the money [Van Liew] owed him, he was going to tell" Mrs. Howard's sister, Sheila Langston, with whom (so Mrs. Howard testified) Van Liew had been living for about five years. The trial judge at once told the jury (a) that he later was going to give them further instructions about the statement, and (b) that the "conversation is not to prove the truth of the contents of what is contained in the conversation, but ... [is] being offered only on the issue of motive .... It simply relates to the issue of motive with reference to believability and credibility" and "has a very limited purpose." Defense counsel said he was "satisfied with the cautionary instructions."

Although her talk with Howard was on October 25 or October 26, Mrs. Howard did not call her sister until the 28th. Then she told Mrs. Langston of her conversation with Howard about Van Liew and Judy Monteiro and that if Mrs. Langston "wanted to know more about it, she could ask ... [Mrs. Howard's] daughter, Patricia Gonsalves," who "might know more," as Patricia Gonsalves and Judy Monteiro were friends. Mrs. Langston acknowledged on the stand that she had heard from her sister on the 28th of October and then had called her niece, Patricia Gonsalves, who had told her she knew nothing about Van Liew and Judy Monteiro. Mrs. Langston testified also that she and Van Liew had been having some troubles and that her sister, Mrs. Howard, had not told her where she had learned the story about Van Liew and Judy Monteiro. Mrs. Langston then called Van Liew and told him that she "had heard that he was seeing Judy Monteiro." He asked who had told her that. Mrs. Langston did not tell him. Indeed, she gave Van Liew no opportunity to explain, but told him that either she or he would have to move.

Van Liew, she said, had called her on the 28th (earlier than the call from Mrs. Howard) about his motorcycle. She had refused to lend him money to prevent the vehicle from being put in storage. He was upset about the prospect of losing his vehicle.

Patricia Gonsalves confirmed the account of her telephone talk with Mrs. Langston and told of a later telephone call to her from Van Liew, who was angry. He asked if she "had said anything about Judy and him." She told him that "she didn't know anything." Later she went to see him at the barroom. He was walking back and forth behind the bar, angry because Mrs. Langston was going to leave him. He asked her three times whether she had "said anything to" Mrs. Langston "about Judy." While she was there, he pulled a gun from a cabinet behind the bar and played with it. He then walked up to a back door and she "heard the shooting of the gun." The gun was replaced under the bar counter by Van Liew. ³ Thereafter, Patricia went to Mrs. Langston's house, apparently at Van Liew's request, and later called him to say that Mrs. Langston "was not at home" but that "the furniture was there." ⁴

Van Liew's counsel ably contends that Howard's statement to his wife just prior to October 28 constitutes inadmissible hearsay. See Commonwealth v. DelValle, 351 Mass. 489, 491-493, 221 N.E.2d 922 (1966); Shepard v. United States, 290 U.S. 96, 103-106, 54 S.Ct. 22, 25-26, 78 L.Ed. 196 (1933). The trial judge admitted the statement properly, at least for the limited purpose of showing Howard's state of mind (as the trial judge at once instructed the jury). This would include, of course, the fact that Howard was then concerned about collecting some unspecified debt allegedly owed to him by Van Liew, and that to do so he was prepared to tell his own (Howard's) sister-in-law, Mrs. Langston, about having seen Van Liew and Judy Monteiro together. Howard's then existing state of mind could have relevance to Van Liew's motive, if it could be shown that Van Liew had knowledge of facts sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that Howard was the person who had caused Mrs. Langston to learn that Van Liew and Judy had been seen together. See Commonwealth v. Borodine, 371 Mass. 1, 7-9, 353 N.E.2d 649 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1049, 97 S.Ct. 760, 50 L.Ed.2d 765 (1977). See also Commonwealth v. St. Germain, 381 Mass. 256, --- - ---, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1980) 1807, 1821-1822, 408 N.E.2d 1358.

Under the DelValle case, 351 Mass. at 491-492, 221 N.E.2d 922, Howard's statement to his wife was not admissible to prove the truth of the substantive facts therein contained. See Proposed Mass.R.Evid. 803(3) (July, 1980); ⁵ McCormick, Evidence, §§ 294-296, especially at 696 (2d ed. 1972); ⁶ Liacos, Handbook of Mass. Evidence, 348-350 (5th ed. 1981). See also Commonwealth v. Howard, 8 Mass.App. 318, 322-323, 393 N.E.2d 949 (1979); 6 Wigmore, Evidence, c. 58, especially §§ 1725-1730 (Chadbourn rev. 1976 & Supp.1982). The prosecution, under the decided cases, could not rely upon Howard's statement to show that Howard in fact had spoken to Van Liew about seeing him with Judy Monteiro. From other facts in evidence, however, the jury could reasonably infer that Van Liew suspected Howard of informing Mrs. Langston. Van Liew knew from her telephone call to him on the 28th that someone had seen him with Judy. That Mrs. Langston was Mrs. Howard's sister had some tendency to point in Mrs. Howard's direction. Van Liew's call and talk with Patricia Gonsalves may well have satisfied him that Patricia was not the source of the report that had reached Mrs. Langston. His angry reply to Howard at the bar on the 28th, testified to by Earl Levy (when Howard told Van Liew that he had "better pay Mirna her five dollars"), might have reminded him that he owed Howard money (although there was no proof of this debt apart from Howard's statement) and thus have brought Howard within the range of suspicion. The jury could give some weight to the evidence of Van Liew's disturbed, erratic behavior and actions on the 28th before the shooting and to his statements to Anthony McNeil. Also the jury could infer from Van Liew's shooting of Howard at very close range, by pulling the trigger (as Crystal Walker testified), that the shooting was intentional.

Even if Howard's statement to his wife could not be employed to prove that Van Liew knew that Howard had seen him with Judy, we think that there was enough in properly admitted evidence to bring the present situation within the broad language of the St. Germain case, --- Mass. at ---, Mass.Adv.Sh. (1980) at 1822, 408 N.E.2d...