Commonwealth v. Hobbs, SJC-12216

Citation482 Mass. 538,125 N.E.3d 59
Decision Date28 June 2019
Docket NumberSJC-12216
Parties COMMONWEALTH v. Keith HOBBS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

Elizabeth Caddick for the defendant.

Cailin M. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney (Montez D. Haywood, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth.

Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.

KAFKER, J.

A jury convicted the defendant, Keith Hobbs, of murder in the first degree on the theory of deliberate premeditation in connection with the shooting death of the victim, Demetrius Blocker.1 The defendant raises several issues on appeal from his convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial. First, he argues that the motion judge erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress the cell site location information (CSLI) used by the Commonwealth in this case. Three and one-half months of CSLI were collected, and CSLI from the date of the murder figured prominently at trial. Next, he alleges that several reversible errors were committed during the course of his trial. Specifically, the defendant argues (i) that the trial judge erred in permitting a police detective to testify to his observations of the defendant's gait; (ii) that the defendant's constitutional confrontation rights were violated when the trial judge admitted hearsay testimony that a particular cell phone number belonged to his friend; (iii) that the trial judge erred in admitting other hearsay testimony; and (iv) that the prosecutor's characterization of a photograph of the defendant as a "booking photo" amounted to misconduct. Finally, he argues that even if no one error, standing alone, is sufficient to warrant the reversal of his convictions, reversal is nonetheless warranted due to cumulative error.

For the reasons stated infra, we conclude that there has been no reversible error. After a thorough review of the record, we also find no reason to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant a new trial or to either reduce or set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree. We therefore affirm the defendant's convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

Background. We summarize the facts that the jury could have found, reserving other facts for our discussion of specific issues. At approximately 4 P . M . on December 16, 2010, a sole gunman shot the victim in the arm, chest, and head while he sat in a parked car outside a housing complex in the Roxbury section of Boston. The shooter fled the scene on foot. Police and emergency medical personnel soon arrived and attempted to save the victim's life. These efforts proved unsuccessful, and the victim was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

Police immediately began to canvas the crime scene. In the course of their investigation, police interviewed several witnesses at the scene who provided detailed descriptions of the suspected shooter. While their descriptions varied slightly, these witnesses consistently described the suspected shooter as a black- or brown-skinned male wearing a large black coat with a fur collar, dark jeans, and dark shoes. Several witnesses also stated that the man had a distinctive gait, describing his walk as something akin to a limp.2 Police also learned that the suspect had been seen throwing an object into a nearby Dumpster as he left the scene following the shooting.

As police continued to search the crime scene, they discovered four spent shell casings near where the victim was shot and a .45 caliber handgun in the Dumpster identified by witnesses. Subsequent ballistics testing revealed this firearm to be the murder weapon. However, police were unable to recover any fingerprints from either the firearm or the shell casings.

Acting on information from witnesses who described the route the suspect took to flee the scene, police reviewed video footage from surveillance cameras that were located throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Surveillance video recordings from the time frame immediately following the shooting captured footage of a man in a puffy black jacket with a fur collar, dark jeans, and dark sneakers who appeared to have a limp walking away from the crime scene.

Even with this information in hand, police were unable to immediately locate the suspect. In an attempt to identify him, the police released one of the surveillance video recordings of the suspect to the public in February 2011. To that end, the recording was posted online and broadcast by television news stations. Several days after the video recording was released to the public, a man who identified himself as Michael Hobbs3 telephoned Boston police and expressed his belief that the suspect in the recording was his brother, the defendant. Michael reiterated this identification in a follow-up interview with police, and again during subsequent testimony before a grand jury. Before the grand jury, he testified that he was able to identify the suspect as his brother due to the clothing the suspect was wearing and the distinctive way that the suspect walked.4 In addition to identifying the defendant as the suspect in his initial call to police, Michael provided police with a telephone number for a cell phone that he understood to belong to the defendant.5 Police then requested a court order requiring the defendant's cellular service provider to produce, among other information, the historical CSLI from the defendant's cell phone spanning several months surrounding the day of the killing. The application was granted. The CSLI from the date of the killing was introduced at trial and showed that the defendant's cell phone was located in the general vicinity of the crime scene at and around the time of the killing.

The Commonwealth introduced further evidence identifying the defendant as the suspect in the surveillance video footage through Roseanne Robinson, the wife of the defendant's friend, Bonae Swain-Price. Robinson testified that the defendant and her husband knew each other well and that the defendant had lived with her family for a period of time.6 She explained that, having observed the defendant's gait on prior occasions, she believed that one of his legs turned inward as he stepped forward, giving the appearance that he walked with a limp. She also testified that, based at least in part on her familiarity with the defendant's gait, she recognized the defendant as the suspect in the surveillance video recording that the police had released to the public. After watching the video recording, she remarked to her cousin that she thought the suspect in the recording looked like the defendant, and later told the defendant directly that she had "seen him on the news." In addition to her testimony regarding his gait, Robinson testified that she believed the suspect in the recording to be the defendant due to the clothing that the suspect was wearing. She explained that the defendant often wore dark shoes and dark jeans, and that her husband had given the defendant a large black jacket with a fur collar at some point before the date of the killing. Evidence also revealed that Swain-Price had possessed a .45 caliber handgun that matched the general description of the murder weapon, and that Swain-Price possessed this weapon while the defendant lived with Swain-Price and his family.

Finally, the lead detective in the case testified that he had recently reviewed a video recording of the defendant walking and had observed that the defendant had "a distinctive walk," which appeared to him to be a limp.7

After the case was submitted, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges and the defendant was subsequently sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The defendant now appeals.

Discussion. 1. Motion to suppress CSLI. The defendant appeals from the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress. On March 17, 2011, approximately three months after the killing in this case, and after identifying the defendant as a suspect, the Commonwealth filed an application, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703, requesting a court order that would require the defendant's cellular service provider to produce, among other information, the historical CSLI from the defendant's cell phone spanning December 1, 2010, through March 15, 2011.8 The application was granted. A review of the CSLI revealed that the defendant's cell phone was in the vicinity of the crime scene at and around the time of the killing. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the CSLI, arguing that the Commonwealth did not have probable cause to obtain this information. The motion was denied, and the CSLI was eventually admitted in evidence at trial.

When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we "accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law" (quotation and citation omitted). Commonwealth v. White, 475 Mass. 583, 587, 59 N.E.3d 369 (2016). Accordingly, we make an "independent determination of the correctness of the judge's application of constitutional principles to the facts as found" (citation omitted). Id.

Before the government may request and obtain historical CSLI, it ordinarily must first obtain a warrant based on probable cause.9 See Carpenter v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2221, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018) (warrant required under Fourth Amendment to United States Constitution); Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230, 232, 4 N.E.3d 846 (2014) ( Augustine I ), S.C., 470 Mass. 837, 26 N.E.3d 709 and 472 Mass. 448, 35 N.E.3d 688 (2015) (warrant required under art. 14 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights). Because the Commonwealth in this case requested the historical CSLI several years before we first articulated this warrant requirement in 2014, in Augustine I, it did not obtain a warrant.10 The Commonwealth may nevertheless still satisfy the warrant requirement if it can...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Henley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 5, 2021
    ...of crime, the nature of the [evidence] sought, and normal inferences as to where such evidence may be found.’ " Commonwealth v. Hobbs, 482 Mass. 538, 546, 125 N.E.3d 59 (2019), quoting White, 475 Mass. at 589, 59 N.E.3d 369. As with other locations searched, the nexus required to establish ......
  • Commonwealth v. Pacheco
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 17, 2021
    ...and each case involves a fact-intensive inquiry that must be resolved based on the particular facts presented. Commonwealth v. Hobbs , 482 Mass. 538, 125 N.E.3d 59, 71 (2019). Moreover, the lack of geographical limitation in the challenged Section 5773 orders does not violate the particular......
  • State v. Short
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • September 17, 2021
    ..., 2015 Ark. 387, 472 S.W.3d 486 (2015). See, also, U.S. v. Barret , 824 F. Supp. 2d 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).91 See Commonwealth v. Hobbs , 482 Mass. 538, 125 N.E.3d 59 (2019). See, also, United States v. Hunt , 718 Fed. Appx. 328 (6th Cir. 2017) ; U.S. v. Gibbs , 547 Fed. Appx. 174 (4th Cir. 20......
  • Commonwealth v. Perry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 1, 2022
    ...for which probable cause has been established and the physical location of the cell phone recorded by the CSLI." Commonwealth v. Hobbs, 482 Mass. 538, 547, 125 N.E.3d 59 (2019). A nexus is sufficient where "the information available to police ‘provide[s] a substantial basis for concluding t......
  • 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