Commonwealth v. Richards
| Decision Date | 07 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | SJC-11310 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Kenneth Scott RICHARDS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, Boston, for the defendant.
David F. O'Sullivan, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.1
In the early morning hours of June 23, 2006, the defendant, Kenneth Scott Richards, killed his wife, Rachel Richards, by beating her to death with a baseball bat at their home. After officers arrived on the scene, the defendant was taken to a hospital where he underwent surgery for stab wounds
. Within hours of surgery, while still impaired by the residual effects of anesthesia and painkillers, the defendant admitted to a nurse and later to law enforcement officers who questioned him that he had killed his wife and that the stab wounds were self-inflicted. At trial, however, he testified that he struck his wife with the baseball bat in self-defense only after she had stabbed him in the chest. A Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on the theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
The defendant presents four primary claims on appeal. First, the defendant claims that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to retain and offer the testimony of an expert witness at the hearing on the motion to suppress, and then, at trial, to support the defendant's claim that the statements he gave after surgery were not made voluntarily and that he did not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of his Miranda rights. Second, the defendant claims that the judge erred in instructing the jury regarding their evaluation of the voluntariness of the defendant's statements made after surgery. Third, the defendant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for conceding certain points during closing argument. And fourth, the defendant claims that the judge erred in declining the defendant's request to instruct the jury regarding reasonable provocation and sudden combat and in providing a confusing instruction regarding the use of excessive force in self-defense. We affirm the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and the denial of his motion for a new trial, and after plenary review of the entirety of the record, we decline to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the verdict or order a new trial.
Background. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress his inculpatory statements to a nurse and to the law enforcement officers who interviewed him at the hospital. He argued that, because of his physical and mental condition, none of these statements was made voluntarily and, with respect to the law enforcement interviews, he did not knowingly and voluntarily relinquish his Miranda rights. The motion was denied. We shall discuss this motion in more detail when we address the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We summarize the evidence presented at trial, reserving certain details for later discussion.
1. Police response to the crime scene. At 7:58 A . M . on June 23, 2006, Rowley police received a 911 call from the young daughter of the defendant and victim, who said that her father had a "hole" in his stomach and that "there was something wrong with [her] mom, too." Asked by the dispatcher why her father had a hole in his stomach, the daughter said, "I don't know," but in response to later questioning by the dispatcher, she said her mother may have "dug" the hole in his stomach. She said that her father was bleeding, that there was blood all over him, and that there was a baseball bat in her parents' room. There is no evidence that the daughter witnessed what had occurred.
A Rowley police officer, an emergency medical technician, responded at 8 A . M . He saw the defendant and the victim lying in bed, covered in blood. He observed a large kitchen carving knife lying between the defendant's left hand and his body; the officer removed the knife and placed it on the dresser. On the floor to the right of the bed was an aluminum baseball bat. The defendant, shirtless, was breathing but making "gurgling" sounds; he had lacerations on his wrists
and neck and a puncture wound in his abdomen. The victim was not breathing and had no pulse. She had several indentations in her scalp indicating severe skull fractures, and the pillow beneath her head was completely soaked with blood.
2. Medical treatment. The defendant was transported to the hospital, arriving at around 8:30 A . M ., where he underwent an exploratory laparotomy
, which revealed that he had a lacerated diaphragm. Medical staff inserted a tube, successfully re-expanding the defendant's lung. The wounds on the defendant's neck and wrists were also cleaned and sutured. During surgery, the defendant was placed under anesthesia and given muscle relaxants. He also received fentanyl, a narcotic analgesic, at the beginning of surgery, and then morphine while in the operating room, between 11:30 A . M . and 11:45 A . M . At 12:15 P . M ., the defendant was taken from the operating room to the intensive care unit (ICU).
3. Defendant's statement to nurse. The defendant was still under anesthesia
when he was transported to the ICU; as he began to wake, he was given a drug to reverse the muscle relaxants and glycopyrolate to reduce secretions and make extubation easier. The tube was removed at 1:35 P . M . To assess his consciousness and alertness, a nurse (first nurse) asked the defendant his name, date of birth, and where he was; the defendant answered appropriately. When she asked the defendant whether he knew why he was in the hospital, he replied, The defendant then began to cry. Soon after, the defendant complained of chest pain and was administered additional morphine.
4. First police interview. At 1:55 P . M ., Sergeant Stephen May of the Rowley police department and State police Trooper Robert LaBarge, after consulting with medical staff, began to interview the defendant. Also present in the room were the first nurse, an ICU nurse (second nurse), and a hospital administrator. The defendant was given the Miranda warnings and acknowledged that he understood his rights and was willing to speak with the officers. He also agreed to be audio-recorded.2 Throughout the interview, the defendant was crying, his speech was mumbled, and at some point he complained of being in pain. The officers frequently repeated back what the defendant said to confirm their understanding of what he had said. Neither officer asked the defendant what effect the anesthesia
or the medications he was given at the hospital were having on him.
During the course of the interview, which was conversational in tone, the defendant said that between 4 A . M . and 5 A . M ., when the defendant and the victim were in their bedroom, he took a baseball bat out of the closet and hit the victim in the head and "just kept hitting her." The defendant was unable to remember how many times he struck the victim. When LaBarge asked, "Why did this whole thing happen?" the defendant responded, "I lost it I guess," and cried. When asked why, the defendant offered that his "wife was cheating on [him]" for months with someone named Charlie, who lived in Exeter, New Hampshire. The defendant stated that this was not the first time he had heard about the affair; he had learned about it "a long time ago." He also said that the victim had told him the night before that "she didn't love [him] anymore." The defendant repeatedly expressed that he did not know why he had attacked the victim that morning, that he wished he knew, and that he had not been in his "right mind."
LaBarge asked the defendant, The defendant answered "no." The defendant denied that he and the victim had been arguing over the affair. He also denied drinking alcohol the previous night or taking any other drugs besides his cholesterol medication. The defendant correctly answered questions about his work, address, and living situation, and correctly identified the name of his mother-in-law.
LaBarge told the defendant that he was going to be charged with murder in the first degree and later asked if there was "anything else" the defendant wanted to add. The defendant stated that he was "guilty." The interview ended at 2:06 P . M .
5. Second police interview. At 4:10 P . M . that same afternoon, May and LaBarge returned to the defendant's hospital room for a second interview. The defendant was again informed of his Miranda rights, agreed to speak with the officers, and agreed to audio-record the interview. At this time, the defendant's ability to communicate had improved and his speech was clearer, but when asked how he felt, the defendant responded that he felt "horrible" and that his chest was "sore." When asked to read the Miranda card, he complained that his "eyes [were] all over the place," but he did read the card and later signed it.
The defendant's statements in the second interview were largely consistent with those in the first interview, although he provided some additional information. The defendant disagreed with the characterization that he and the victim had argued on the night before the killing, but conceded that they had a "disagreement" because the victim had told him that they did not have "a future together." He stated that he did not think the victim was planning on leaving him at that moment but mentioned that there were "so many other things going on," such as stressors at work and losing a house that he and the victim had planned to buy.
The defendant stated that during their disagreement the night before, the victim "was raising her voice more than [he] was," but that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. NG
...the defendant shot the victim.10 Additional cases where we determined there was adequate provocation include Commonwealth v. Richards, 485 Mass. 896, 919, 153 N.E.3d 1226 (2020) (victim stabbed defendant in chest); Commonwealth v. Triplett, 398 Mass. 561, 565, 569, 500 N.E.2d 262 (1986) (de......
-
Commonwealth v. Welch
...have been in a disturbed emotional state, or even suicidal, ... automatically make statements involuntary." Commonwealth v. Richards, 485 Mass. 896, 910, 153 N.E.3d 1226 (2020), quoting Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 433 Mass. 549, 555, 744 N.E.2d 33 (2001). Review of the record confirms that the......
-
Commonwealth v. Yat Fung Ng
... ... gun, the victim began backing up and was from fifteen to ... twenty feet away from the defendant when the defendant shot ... the victim ... [ 10 ] Additional cases where we determined ... there was adequate provocation include Commonwealth v ... Richards , 485 Mass. 896, 919 (2020) (victim stabbed ... defendant in chest); Commonwealth v. Triplett , 398 ... Mass. 561, 565, 569 (1986) (defendant testified victim lunged ... at him with knife); Commonwealth v. Ransom , 358 ... Mass. 580, 582-583 (1971) (victim stabbed ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Tate
...passion induced by reasonable provocation, sudden combat, or [the use of] excessive force in self-defense.’ " Commonwealth v. Richards, 485 Mass. 896, 918, 153 N.E.3d 1226 (2020), quoting Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 465 Mass. 672, 686, 991 N.E.2d 1036 (2013). "[A] self-defense instruction mus......