Commonwealth v. Sanchez

• Decision Date: 24 January 2022
• Docket Number: 20-P-427
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Elias SANCHEZ.
• Court: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

100 Mass.App.Ct. 644

182 N.E.3d 975

COMMONWEALTH

v.Elias SANCHEZ.

No. 20-P-427

Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued September 15, 2021

Decided January 24, 2022.

James L. Sultan, Boston, for the defendant.

Elisabeth Martino, Assistant District Attorney (Mark D. Zanini, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the Commonwealth.

Present: Vuono, Blake, & Englander, JJ.

BLAKE, J.

Edwin Santos was fatally stabbed in front of Bell's Market in South Boston. The defendant, Elias Sanchez, his son, Angel Sanchez, who was sixteen years old at the time, and his brother, Gabriel Sanchez, were charged with Santos's murder. Following a joint trial in the Superior Court, a jury convicted Elias¹ of murder in the second degree on a theory of joint venture, and acquitted Angel, whom the Commonwealth alleged was the principal, and Gabriel.² Elias filed a motion for a new trial claiming that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce a slow-motion version of a surveillance video recording that allegedly supported his theory that the fatal stab wound was accidentally inflicted by Santos's girlfriend, who had intervened in the fight. He also claimed that trial counsel should have requested a jury instruction on accident, and that the judge inform the jury, based on Commonwealth v. Norris, 462 Mass. 131, 143 n.11, 967 N.E.2d 113 (2012), that if they were to acquit Angel based on the theory that he stabbed Santos in defense of Elias, then the killing was justifiable and there could be no murder in which Elias participated.

The new trial motion was denied by a different judge (motion judge) following a nonevidentiary hearing.³ Elias timely appealed.

On his direct appeal, Elias claims that the trial judge erred in declining his request to instruct the jury on assault and battery as a lesser included offense of murder, and in failing to require the Commonwealth to explain its peremptory challenge of a Hispanic prospective juror. On his appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, which was consolidated with his direct appeal, Elias claims that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

Background. The Commonwealth's case. We recite the relevant facts that the jury could have found, reserving certain facts for later discussion. On November 17, 2013, just before 5 P.M. , a fight broke out among Elias, Gabriel, and Santos. The fight occurred on the sidewalk just outside of the apartment building where Santos's girlfriend, Jessica Montanez, and their children lived. Montanez saw the men fighting from a window, and came outside to try to break it up. Once outside, Montanez saw only Gabriel; Elias and Santos had left the area. Montanez went to look for Santos. She found him a short distance away in front of Bell's Market.

As Santos and Montanez began walking back in the direction of the apartment building, they were approached by Elias and Angel. Elias repeatedly hit Santos with an expandable baton. After Santos turned toward Elias and raised his hand, Angel ran toward the two of them and then repeatedly stabbed Santos, while Elias continued to beat Santos with the baton. As Elias and Angel struggled with Santos, Gabriel ran toward the group and repeatedly punched Santos. Montanez tried unsuccessfully to protect Santos. She pulled a knife from Santos's jacket, and tried to stab the defendants. During the fight, Montanez dropped the knife; as she tried to retrieve it, Gabriel pushed her, picked up the knife, and ran off. Elias and Angel continued to attack Santos briefly before they ran away. In all, Angel stabbed Santos eighteen times. Santos stumbled into the market and collapsed. The entire episode lasted less than one minute, and was captured on the market's video surveillance cameras from various angles. The surveillance videos were played for the jury multiple times.

When emergency personnel arrived, Santos was in cardiac arrest

, had no pulse, and was not breathing. He died soon thereafter. An autopsy revealed that Santos had sustained eighteen stab wounds to his back, shoulders, chest, head, and face. He also had blunt force injuries all over his body, including multiple blunt force injuries to his head. The medical examiner opined that the wounds to Santos's sternum and lungs were the fatal wounds.

The defense. Elias did not testify at trial. Through cross-examination and argument, he claimed that he acted in self-defense. He emphasized that Santos was the aggressor, and solicited testimony from Montanez that she previously had obtained an abuse prevention order against Santos, Santos had previously been incarcerated for gun related offenses, and Santos had prior altercations with Elias before the night he died.

Elias also argued that his capacity to intend to kill was diminished due to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); he presented expert testimony from Dr. Eric Brown, a clinical and forensic psychologist, in support of this theory. Dr. Brown testified that he met with Elias four times, and reviewed medical and psychiatric records. He concluded that Elias suffered from PTSD, panic disorder with agoraphobia

, and major depressive disorder. Dr. Brown testified, in part, that Elias was "in a state of paranoia and having a history of paranoia, [Elias] w[as] very likely to ... be in fear of being attacked, harmed and killed ...." He opined that Elias "had [a] diminished capacity which left him unable to form any kind of conscious and clear intent to harm ... Santos." Finally, Elias argued that he caused Santos only "superficial injuries."

As noted, the Commonwealth's theory of the case was that Angel was the principal, and that he had inflicted the fatal stab wound. Angel claimed that he acted in defense of his father (Elias), and also argued that he lacked the requisite intent for murder. In support of the latter theory, Angel called Dr. Robert Kinscherff, who testified about adolescent brain development to support his claim that Angel did not act with the requisite intent or knowledge. Angel also called Dr. Frank DiCataldo, who opined that "Angel had vulnerabilities, deficits in his ability to manage his emotions and behavior, particularly when under stress, a hot situation, compared to other similar-aged adolescents."⁴

Discussion. 1. Motion for new trial. We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for a significant error of law or abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 486 Mass. 328, 334, 158 N.E.3d 43 (2020). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "the defendant must show that the behavior of counsel fell measurably below that of an ordinary, fallible lawyer and that such failing ‘likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available, substantial ground of defence.’ " Commonwealth v. Prado, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 253, 255, 113 N.E.3d 365 (2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96, 315 N.E.2d 878 (1974).

a. The surveillance video. Elias first claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek to admit in evidence a zoomed-in and slowed-down version of the video of the attack. He claims that the video raised a reasonable possibility that Montanez accidently inflicted the fatal stab wounds.⁵ The Commonwealth played the video for the jury, frame by frame, during its case in chief, and assured the trial judge that the jurors could slow it down during their deliberations, if they chose to do so. The surveillance video was also played multiple times for the jury by others. For example, Gabriel's attorney played and paused the video during an expert witness's testimony, and he played a slowed-down version of the video during his closing argument.

Having viewed the video ourselves, we agree with the motion judge's conclusion that the video does not support Elias's theory that Montanez inflicted the fatal stab wound.⁶ As a result, the video did not cast doubt on Elias's guilt, nor would it have accomplished something material for his defense. In fact, the video depicts Angel, wearing a black glove, repeatedly stabbing Santos in the chest with a knife. This was corroborated by a still photograph introduced at trial that showed a black, gloved hand thrust a knife toward the Santos's chest.⁷ Upon repeated viewings of the video recording, we conclude that Montanez's movements and position do not show that she inflicted the fatal stab wound -- accidentally or otherwise.⁸ The motion judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Elias's motion on this ground.

b. Accident defense. Elias next contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on accident. As noted, the Commonwealth argued that the defendants acted together, and that Angel inflicted the fatal stab wounds. The defendants claimed, as relevant here, that Santos was the primary aggressor and that each acted in self-defense or defense of another. No one argued that Montanez accidentally killed Santos. In addition, trial counsel argued that Elias lacked the requisite mental capacity to form the intent to murder. If accepted by the jury, either of these defenses would negate malice, an element of murder. See Connolly v. Commonwealth, 377 Mass. 527, 529, 387 N.E.2d 519 (1979) ("malice is an essential element of murder, and a proper exercise of self-defense negates malice").

Here, the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the evidence did not support an accident instruction. It was undisputed that Elias did not inflict the fatal wound. And, as discussed supra, the possibility that Montanez -- and not Angel -- fatally stabbed Santos was belied by the evidence, including the surveillance video. In addition, Dr. Elizabeth LaPosata, a forensic pathologist, testified that she had reviewed the medical examiner's file and watched the surveillance video; she opined that the fatal wound was caused by Angel's stab to Santos's sternum, which hit the pulmonary artery.

Moreover, a defense based on accident stems from the unintended consequences of...