Commonwealth v. Miller

• Decision Date: 22 October 2020
• Docket Number: SJC-11696
• Citation: 156 N.E.3d 145,486 Mass. 78
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Laquan MILLER.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

486 Mass. 78

156 N.E.3d 145

COMMONWEALTH

v.Laquan MILLER.

SJC-11696

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk..

Argued April 6, 2020

Decided October 22, 2020

John J. Barter, Boston, for the defendant.

Ian MacLean, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.¹

KAFKER, J.

On June 6, 2013, the defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree by deliberate premeditation of Wilfredo Martinez and assault with intent to murder Kareem Dowling. On appeal, the defendant argues that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police after he was arrested, and that the jury returned inconsistent verdicts when acquitting him of the charge of unlicensed possession of a firearm, yet convicting him of both murder and assault with intent to murder. We affirm the defendant's convictions and conclude that he is not entitled to relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

1. Background. At the time of the shooting, around 10 P.M. on June 5, 2011, Martinez and Dowling were sitting near the basketball court on the back stoop of an apartment building in the Archdale housing development (Archdale) in the Roslindale section of Boston. They were speaking with their friend, Chris Colon, who was standing to the side of the stairs. After Martinez and Dowling had been sitting on the stoop and talking for about fifteen minutes, the back door to the apartment building burst open, and Martinez and Dowling were both shot.

Martinez was shot multiple times: one bullet struck him in the head, and three bullets struck him in the back. Dowling also suffered multiple gunshot wounds

to his back. Colon fled the area when the shots began and was not injured.

Dowling, who survived the shooting, testified that while he was sitting on the steps of the apartment building, "[t]he door kicked open and I got shot in my back." He heard the sound of multiple gunshots. Dowling never saw who shot him or Martinez. None of the witnesses in the area saw who fired the shots. When police arrived, they found Martinez's body on the stairs of the apartment building. Martinez was pronounced dead at the scene. Dowling was still breathing, and police and first responders engaged in conversations with him to keep him alert.

One witness, Harold Hernandez, who lived in the apartment building, heard the gunshots and looked outside within seconds of hearing them. He saw the two victims on the doorsteps, as well as another individual in the middle of the parking lot wearing a black hooded sweatshirt. It looked as if the person had a gun in his hands. Hernandez did not see the individual's face, and testified that he would not be able to identify him. The person wearing the black hooded sweatshirt ran up Brookstone Street toward Washington Street, where he met another person. The two people then turned right and went down Washington Street together. Police arrived in the area shortly thereafter.

Another eyewitness, Wanda Iglesias, lived across the street from the house where the defendant and his friend Elvis Sanchez lived in separate apartments on Washington Street.² At approximately 10 P.M. , she got into her car to go to a coffee shop. She saw two people, whom she ultimately identified as Sanchez and the defendant, coming out of the house across the street. They walked toward Archdale. Video surveillance footage also shows that the defendant left his apartment about fifteen minutes before the shooting occurred, headed toward the apartment building.

Several minutes later, Iglesias returned to the same parking spot in front of her house and heard three gunshots. The shots came from the area of a nearby basketball court. She got out of her car and went toward her house. She saw the defendant coming from the area of the basketball court. She also saw Sanchez. Iglesias testified that she saw a silver gun in the defendant's hand at the time.

Another eyewitness also testified to seeing Sanchez with the defendant after hearing four or five gun shots around 10 P.M. that night. That eyewitness similarly testified to seeing what looked like a gun in the defendant's hand.

The defendant's mother testified that the defendant had left the house sometime after 9 P.M. with Sanchez. At about 10 P.M. , she heard gunshots. She went outside to see where the defendant was, walking to the corner of Washington Street and Brookstone Street. She saw the defendant running up Brookstone Street toward Washington Street. She saw Sanchez coming from Washington Street, as if he were coming from Archdale Road. She did not look at the defendant's hands when he first came onto Washington Street, but she did not see a gun in his hands as he passed her and went to the house.

The defendant's father testified that, shortly after the defendant entered the apartment, the defendant said he knew the individual who had been shot. This took place approximately thirty minutes after the gunshots were fired.

Police canvassed the area for evidence, finding shell casings in the first-floor hallway of the apartment building, near the entry where the shooting victims had been found. Other ballistics evidence, including bullets and fragments collected from the two victims, were sent with the shell casings to the firearms analysis unit of the Boston police department. No firearms were found the night of the shooting.

On June 7, 2011, a search of an empty apartment in the apartment building uncovered two firearms: a Marlin .45 caliber semiautomatic rifle and a Smith and Wesson .357 caliber revolver. Neither of the guns matched the shell casings, bullets, or fragments recovered from the crime scene. Two prints on the Marlin rifle were sufficient for comparison. One was a match for Sanchez. Neither Sanchez nor the defendant could be excluded as matches for the other print. Two prints from the revolver were suitable for comparison, but neither matched the defendant or Sanchez. Boston police ballisticians concluded that the crime was committed with two firearms: a .45 caliber semiautomatic and either a .38 caliber or .357 caliber revolver. Neither type of weapon was ever found.

The defendant was arrested on July 24, 2011. On September 28, 2011, a grand jury returned indictments charging the defendant with murder, armed assault with intent to murder, and possession of a firearm without a license. The defendant filed motions to suppress his statements to detectives during two interviews conducted on July 24, the same day he was arrested. During those two interviews, the defendant gave conflicting accounts of his whereabouts on the evening of the shooting. As explained in more detail infra, the defendant first claimed that he was at home the entire evening. In the second interview, he admitted to being at the apartment building when the shooting occurred, but said he was not involved. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion judge denied the defendant's motions. The jury heard a redacted version of both these interviews, and thus both versions of the defendant's story.

On June 6, 2013, the jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree and armed assault with the intent to murder, but acquitted the defendant of unlicensed possession of a firearm. Because the defendant was under eighteen years old at the time of the shooting, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after fifteen years for murder in the first degree, see Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and a concurrent term of from eighteen to twenty years imprisonment for armed assault with the intent to murder. The defendant appealed from his convictions.

2. Discussion. a. Standard of review. Generally, "[i]n reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the [motion] judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error but conduct an independent review of his ultimate findings and conclusions of law" (quotation omitted). Commonwealth v. Clarke, 461 Mass. 336, 340, 960 N.E.2d 306 (2012), quoting Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642, 646, 801 N.E.2d 233 (2004). It is then "[o]ur duty ... to make an independent determination of the correctness of the [motion] judge's application of constitutional principles to the facts as found." Clarke, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Bostock, 450 Mass. 616, 619, 880 N.E.2d 759 (2008).

Where the motion judge's findings of fact are premised on documentary evidence, however, "this court stands in the same position as did the [motion] judge, and reaches its own conclusion unaffected by the findings made by the [motion] judge." Clarke, 461 Mass. at 341, 960 N.E.2d 306, quoting Commonwealth v. Novo, 442 Mass. 262, 266, 812 N.E.2d 1169 (2004). "To the extent the motion judge made credibility determinations relevant to his subsidiary findings of fact, we adhere to the normal standard of review," affording such findings substantial deference and accepting them "unless not warranted by the evidence" (citation omitted). Clarke, supra.

b. Motion to suppress. The defendant argues that the motion judge erred in denying his motion to suppress for two closely related reasons. First, the defendant argues that the detectives did not scrupulously honor his right to counsel after he invoked this right by saying: "Do I get a lawyer tonight?" Second, the defendant argues that his waiver of his Miranda rights was not intelligent, knowing, or voluntary and that his statements were not voluntary, due to what he characterizes as "now or never" interrogation tactics that overcame his ability to make a voluntary waiver. We will address each argument in turn, but first recite the relevant facts as found by the motion judge.

i. Key facts found by the motion judge. Detectives Frank McLaughlin and Gloria Kinkead of the Boston police department testified at the evidentiary hearing. The motion judge issued a written ruling denying the defendant's motion to suppress.³ The judge found that, during...