Commonwealth v. Quiles

Citation488 Mass. 298,173 N.E.3d 1
Decision Date30 August 2021
Docket NumberSJC-12733
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
Parties COMMONWEALTH v. Joel QUILES.

James L. Sultan, Boston, for the defendant.

Johanna Black, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

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

CYPHER, J.

A jury convicted the defendant, Joel Quiles, of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder, with the predicate offense of armed robbery for stabbing to death the victim, Jonathan Semedo. The jury also convicted the defendant of armed assault with intent to rob the victim and armed home invasion.1

However, the jury did not reach their verdict of murder in the first degree based on the predicate felony of armed robbery on their first return of the verdict slips. When the jury returned the initial verdict slips, the judge noticed that the jury had checked the box on the verdict slip for felony-murder with the predicate offense of armed home invasion, but had answered "no" in response to the special question whether the defendant had assaulted a person other than the victim. After identifying this issue, in accordance with our recommendation in Commonwealth v. Zekirias, 443 Mass. 27, 32, 819 N.E.2d 166 (2004), discussed infra, the judge reinstructed the jury. He first reinstructed the jury to deliberate on murder in the second degree, but the next day reinstructed the jury to deliberate on murder in the first degree based on deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder with the predicate felony of armed robbery, and murder in the second degree (third instruction). The jury returned the verdict on murder in the first degree based on the predicate felony of armed robbery after the judge's third instruction.

In his direct appeal, the defendant argues that (1) his right to a jury determination of guilt upon sufficient evidence was violated; (2) the judge violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy by ordering the jury to continue deliberating on felony-murder with the underlying felony of armed robbery; (3) the judge's third instruction was unconstitutionally coercive; and (4) his conviction of murder in the first degree is not consonant with justice. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree and armed home invasion. We vacate his conviction of armed assault with intent to rob as duplicative of his felony-murder conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we decline to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to grant a new trial or reduce or set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree.

Background. We summarize the evidence at trial, reserving certain details for our analysis of the issues.

1. Events leading to murder. On the night of May 3, 2013, the victim, Kiara Arias,2 Jonathan Alves, Alexander Gomes, Kristina, and Haley3 went to a nightclub in Providence, Rhode Island. On the way to Providence from Brockton, Arias received a call from the defendant, during which the defendant learned that Arias was with the victim.4

Also on the night of May 3, the defendant invited Talis Francisco to a party. Francisco's friend, Jordan Shockley, drove them in a minivan along with the defendant's two friends, Eric Claudio and Vladimir Verdieu.

The victim's group left the nightclub and stopped at a house party in Brockton. Arias had continued communicating with the defendant before arriving at the house party. The victim, Arias, Haley, and Alves went into the house, but all except Arias left after about fifteen minutes and went to Haley's apartment, also in Brockton. A short time after the victim's group left, the defendant's group arrived at the house party. Before arriving at the house party, Claudio showed a gun to Francisco and the defendant's group stopped at a different house, where the defendant and his friends went inside and came out with trash bags containing clothes and shoes. The defendant, Verdieu, and Claudio went into the house party. They stayed for around ten minutes, during which time the defendant appeared "aggravated." The defendant's group then left with Arias to go to Haley's apartment.

Before Arias provided the address of Haley's apartment, the defendant, Claudio, Verdieu, and Francisco spoke outside the minivan for from ten to thirty minutes. The defendant, Verdieu, Claudio, and Arias whispered in the back seat during the drive, and Arias testified that they were going to Haley's house "[t]o rob [the victim]."

2. Events at Haley's apartment. When the defendant's group and Arias arrived at Haley's apartment, the defendant instructed Arias to enter the apartment, to leave the door open, and to tell him where people were located inside. Haley's apartment had two staircases leading to her third-floor apartment; one was an interior staircase that opened in the living room, and the other was an exterior staircase that opened in the bathroom. Arias used the exterior staircase and entered the bathroom, where she saw the victim, who was vomiting, and Haley. Arias told Haley that she took a taxicab to Haley's house. Haley invited Arias into the living room, but Arias replied that she needed to charge her cell phone and remained in the bathroom. Within a few minutes of Arias's entering the apartment, the defendant, Verdieu, Claudio, and Francisco used the interior staircase to access Haley's apartment. The defendant borrowed Francisco's knife to open the locked door to the apartment, and he ordered the others to "get the money." Verdieu covered his face with a bandana, took out a gun, and led the group into the apartment.

Gomes, Alves, and Kristina were sitting on the couch in the living room when the defendant's group entered. The defendant, Verdieu, and Claudio approached the individuals on the couch, and Francisco remained in the apartment's hallway, despite the defendant putting his hand on Francisco's neck and asking him to get the money. Verdieu pointed his gun at the individuals on the couch and told them to empty their pockets. The defendant was holding a knife in the open position at his side and told the individuals on the couch that it was not a joke. Gomes and Alves handed over some items.

The victim was not with the others in the living room for the initial encounter, and when he entered the living room, the defendant, Verdieu, and Claudio told him to empty his pockets5 and Verdieu held a gun to his head. The victim refused and pushed the gun away, at which point a fight broke out.

During the fight, the defendant stabbed the victim. When Verdieu's gun went off into the ceiling, Francisco, Claudio, Verdieu, and the defendant left the apartment, got into Shockley's minivan, and told him to "go, go, go, drive." The victim's group also left the apartment and gathered outside the home. The victim was bleeding, had labored breathing, became unconscious, and later died.

While driving the defendant's group, Shockley did not see a knife, but he heard the defendant say, "Give me the knife." Francisco testified that the defendant was holding Francisco's knife when the defendant left Shockley's minivan. The victim's deoxyribonucleic acid was found in Shockley's minivan near where the defendant was sitting.

3. Cause of death. The medical examiner testified that the victim died from his stab wounds. The victim had stab wounds on his front and back and incised wounds

on his arm. The medical examiner noted that the stab wounds on the victim's back were a different shape from the ones on his front and opined that it was possible that the wounds were caused by two different weapons.6

4. Jury deliberations. The jury returned their initial verdict on the second day of deliberations. However, the jury had checked the box on the verdict slip for felony-murder with the predicate offense of armed home invasion, but answered "no" in response to the special question whether the defendant had assaulted a person other than the victim. The judge reinstructed the jury to return to the jury room to consider whether the defendant was guilty of murder in the second degree, and after the jury deliberated for about an hour, he excused them for the day.7 The next morning, after discussion with the Commonwealth and the defendant, the judge reinstructed the jury on deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, felony-murder with the predicate felony of armed robbery, murder in the second degree, and attempt.

The jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree, based on the theory of felony-murder with armed robbery as the predicate felony. The jury also convicted the defendant of armed home invasion and armed assault with intent to rob the victim.

Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of evidence. The defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of murder in the first degree based on the theory of felony-murder with armed robbery as the predicate felony. He contends that the sequence of events from the initial jury verdict to the final jury verdict violated his right to a jury determination of guilt upon sufficient evidence of every element of the crime charged. The Commonwealth argues that the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree must be affirmed because the defendant's attempted armed robbery of the victim was supported by sufficient evidence at trial, and attempted armed robbery is a lesser included offense of the predicate felony of armed robbery upon which the jury based their felony-murder verdict. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to convict the defendant of murder in the first degree on the theory of felony-murder with the underlying felony of armed robbery.

In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we ask whether, "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Ralph R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 10, 2022
    ...the potential of racial or ethnic bias in the jury room without invading the jury's deliberative process. See Commonwealth v. Quiles, 488 Mass. 298, 316, 173 N.E.3d 1 (2021), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 1237, 212 L.Ed.2d 239 (2022). For example, in Tavares, 385 Mass. at 153-156,......
  • Commonwealth v. Tavares
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • February 24, 2023
    ...Thus, what otherwise might have happened if the case had been tried differently is purely speculative.9 Cf. Commonwealth v. Quiles, 488 Mass. 298, 306-307, 173 N.E.3d 1 (2021), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 142 S. Ct. 1237, 212 L.Ed.2d 239 (2022) (conviction upheld where jury were instructed......
  • Commonwealth v. Fernandes
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • July 21, 2023
    ...398 (1995). Consequently, we vacate the defendant's three convictions of assault by means of a dangerous weapon. See Commonwealth v. Quiles, 488 Mass. 298, 318 (2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1237 15. Review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We have reviewed the record in accordance with G. L. c. ......
  • Commonwealth v. Ralph R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 10, 2022
    ...the potential of racial or ethnic bias in the jury room without invading the jury's deliberative process. See Commonwealth v. Quiles, 488 Mass. 298, 316 (2021), cert. Denied, 142 S.Ct. 1237 For example, in Tavares, 385 Mass. at 153-156, the judge employed a procedure whereby, upon receipt o......
  • 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