Commonwealth v. Shakespeare
| Docket Number | SJC-12898 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. WILLIAM OMARI SHAKESPEARE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
1
COMMONWEALTH
v.
WILLIAM OMARI SHAKESPEARE.
No. SJC-12898
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk
November 30, 2023
Heard: April 10, 2023.
Homicide. Firearms. Evidence, Testimony before grand jury, Testimony at prior proceeding, Previous testimony of unavailable witness, Relevancy and materiality, Identification, Third-party culprit, Consciousness of guilt, Opinion. Error, Harmless. Practice, Criminal, Harmless error, Hearsay, Assistance of counsel.
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 28, 2016.
The cases were tried before Christine M. Roach, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on September 9, 2021, was considered by her.
Amy M. Belger (James N. Greenberg also present) for the defendant.
Sarah Montgomery Lewis, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Cypher, Kafker, & Wendlandt, JJ.
CYPHER, J.
On the afternoon of June 14, 2016, Marcus Hall (victim) was shot and killed outside a barbershop (shop) where he brought his four year old son for a haircut. A grand jury
indicted the defendant, William Omari Shakespeare, for the victim's murder and related firearms offenses. At trial, the defendant argued that another person present in the shop at the time of the murder, Mark Edwards, was the shooter. The jury convicted the defendant of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty and of all firearms charges.[1]
Appealing from his convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, the defendant argues that the evidence that the defendant committed the killing was insufficient; that the judge committed prejudicial error in failing to allow Edwards's grand jury testimony in evidence where Edwards was deceased and the evidence supported the defendant's third-party culprit defense; that Boston police Sergeant Detective Michael Stratton impermissibly testified about his observations of the video evidence; and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Stratton's testimony and for pursuing a particular line of questioning with Stratton that the defendant alleges diminished counsel's credibility with the jury. The defendant also asks us to reduce his verdict of murder in the first degree
or order a new trial pursuant to our power granted by G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
We conclude that it was error to prohibit counsel from introducing Edwards's grand jury testimony and that such error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, we must reverse all the defendant's convictions, as his convictions on the firearm charges were intertwined with his murder conviction. Holding that the evidence was sufficient for the defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree, however, we reverse and remand the case for a new trial. Pursuant to our decision in Commonwealth v. Guardado, 493 Mass. 1 (2023) (Guardado II), the defendant may also be retried on the firearms offenses. Because the remainder of the issues raised by the defendant may recur at a new trial, we address them and hold that Stratton's testimony was admissible and counsel was not ineffective.
1. Background.
a. Facts.
"Because the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to murder in the first degree," we recite the facts in detail in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reserving certain details for later discussion. Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 410 (2011).
i. The murder.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at around 11:53 A.M., the victim brought his four year old son Ryan[2] to the shop in the Mattapan section of Boston for a haircut. On that date, there were five barbers working at the shop: Levi Preddie, Mattia Zagon, Raymond Menzie, Isaac Lewis, and Jodie Davis. Although Zagon was the victim's and Ryan's regular barber, Lewis cut Ryan's hair that day. Zagon knew the victim as "smart, driven[,] . . . sociable," and as intent on "empowering us as [B]lack people." The victim was not "easily agitated or angered."
The shop, a social "hotspot" for those in the community, frequently had people from the neighborhood come in only to socialize. When any barber did not have a client in his chair, the barbers passed the time by cleaning, entertaining other clients in the shop, and playing games and music. On that day, the shop was not busy.
The shop was small and narrow. Behind a half wall at the back of the shop were sinks for hair washing, a supply closet on the left (the first door on the left), and a bathroom just before the back door (the second door on the left). There were two doors allowing access to the shop: a front door facing Blue Hill Avenue and a back door facing the parking lot behind the
shop (rear lot). The rear lot was covered in gravel. A gate to the rear lot provided access and sometimes was open and sometimes locked. On June 14, 2016, it was open. Typically, individuals who worked at the shop and surrounding businesses would park in the rear lot, along with regular clients who occasionally would also park there. The back door was open on that day to let in a breeze.
The shop was situated between Blue Hill Avenue, Morton Street, and Landor Road, nearer to the corner of Blue Hill Avenue and Morton Street. To access the rear lot, a driver would have to turn right from Blue Hill Avenue onto Landor Road and then turn left from Landor Road into the parking lot. Once a driver turned left into the lot, he or she first would pass a smokehouse and a red trash barrel, and then turn left again into the rear lot. Intersecting Landor Road and Morton Street behind the shop was Leston Street. On the day of the murder, there were cameras posted in the shop, but not outside the shop in the rear lot.
Earlier on that day, before the victim[3] and his young son arrived, the defendant arrived at the shop at approximately
11:37 A.M.[4] The defendant was wearing a light red shirt with a bear pictured on the front, and lighter colored pants. At the time of the murder, the defendant had been going there to get his hair cut for a few years, and never had he caused a problem. The barbers knew the defendant as "brown man" and the "Jamaican guy."
When the defendant arrived that day, he entered by the back door and brought food with him; he ate and chatted with the barbers about basketball. From the video recording (video) of the activity inside the shop, as the defendant was speaking with the barbers, he appeared to be friendly and animated.[5] When Zagon arrived that day at around 11 A.M. or noon, he saw Preddie's blue car parked in the rear lot, as well as a black Toyota that was unknown to him. Zagon parked his own car, also blue, in the rear lot.
As mentioned supra, at approximately 11:53 A.M., the victim and his son entered the shop. Immediately after entering, the victim engaged in a discussion with the defendant. Menzie noted
that it seemed as if the defendant and victim knew each other. As shown in the video, the defendant's body language changed as he was speaking with the victim; neither he nor the victim appeared to be laughing or joking. The victim told the defendant that he had been trying to get in touch with the defendant by telephone. After approximately one minute of conversation, the victim walked toward the back of the shop and out the back door. The defendant followed the victim within the minute, returned briefly to the back of the shop within ten seconds, and then left through the back door again. Lewis had to close the back door to the shop because they were arguing and "it was loud." Davis heard someone say "fuck" loudly, but did not know who was arguing in the rear lot. After approximately two minutes, at around 11:57 A.M., the victim reappeared on the video and walked from the front to the back of the shop and out the door again. The defendant did not reenter the shop for about twenty minutes.
When the victim reentered the shop at around 11:59 A.M. through the back door, he appeared to be preoccupied. He left the shop briefly but returned, and used his cell phone for a while, which struck Preddie as unusual. At around 12:13 P.M., the victim walked to the back of the shop and seemed to look out the back door, and then walked to the front.
At 12:17 P.M., another man, later identified as Mark Edwards, entered the shop through the back door. He was wearing a bright red shirt, dark jeans, a bulky gold chain, and sunglasses on top of his head, and he was carrying a small bag with straps around his chest. He appeared to greet the barbers sitting at the back of the shop, look at the front where the victim was located, turn around, and walk out the back door while on his cell phone.[6] Edwards was not a regular client, and the barbers who knew of him referred to him as "dreads" or "dreadlocks." Menzie testified that Edwards was a "social" and "cool" person and that he never saw Edwards get into a fight at the shop.
At approximately 12:19 P.M., the defendant reentered the shop by the back door. The victim put down his cell phone and walked to the back of the shop toward the defendant. Lewis heard the defendant say to the victim, "Let me talk to you." The defendant stepped out the back door first, with the victim close behind him.[7] When they went outside, Davis did not see anyone else out in the rear lot. Within five seconds, the
victim appeared to lunge forward and then moved back to the doorway.[8]
At this point, Preddie was at the sink, and as he was drying his hands, he heard a loud bang and saw the victim fall against the door. The victim looked at the barbers in the shop, and then went back out the back door and was shot almost immediately. Zagon said that the victim looked "scared" when he briefly moved back to the doorway of the shop. Preddie heard "a lot" of gunshots, and Menzie heard more than one. The barbers felt stones...
To continue reading
Request your trial