Spinucci v. Vidal
| Decision Date | 06 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16-cv-12513-ADB |
| Parties | JOSEPH SPINUCCI, Petitioner, v. OSVALDO VIDAL, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
BURROUGHS, D.J.
On June 22, 2006, Petitioner Joseph Spinucci ("Petitioner") was convicted of numerous counts related to an attack on Ryan Sullivan ("Sullivan"), Jules Stevens ("Stevens"), and William Tighe ("Tighe"), including first and second degree murder related to the death of Sullivan; armed assault with intent to murder Stevens and Tighe; assault and battery of Stevens by means of a dangerous weapon, causing serious bodily injury; and assault and battery of Tighe by means of a dangerous weapon. [Supplemental Answer ("S.A.") at 1-2]. Presently before the Court is Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [ECF No. 1]. Petitioner challenges his convictions, claiming (1) that the state trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on manslaughter based on provocation or sudden combat violated Due Process; (2) that the state courts' (Middlesex Superior Court and Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC")) findings regarding provocation were unreasonable because the facts demonstrated that the victim's conduct was sufficiently provocative to justify a manslaughter instruction; (3) that the jury instructions permitted an inference of malice from the use of a dangerous weapon and contributed to a finding of guilt on a joint venture theory of murder; and (4) that there was insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict for an assault on Stevens, making the decision contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. [Id. at 16-17]. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [ECF No. 1], is DENIED.
When reviewing habeas petitions, the Court presumes that factual determinations made by state courts are correct. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Rashad v. Walsh, 300 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir. 2002). The following summarizes the facts set forth by the SJC in Commonwealth v. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d 1084 (Mass. 2015).
On the evening of July 1, 2004, Petitioner, co-defendant Van Louis Gustave ("Gustave"), and their respective girlfriends, Claudine Dyer ("Dyer") and Danielle Leblanc ("Leblanc"), watched the Trum Field fireworks show from a garage roof on Albion Street in Somerville. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1087. All four attendees had been drinking before getting together and continued to drink beer and smoke marijuana during the show. Id. Gustave and Leblanc had also taken several Klonopin pills. Id. On their way to the viewing spot, Leblanc, witnessed by Petitioner, asked for Gustave's knife in case they ran into someone that might cause them "problems," and Gustave answered, "No." Id. Dyer also asked Petitioner whether he had a knife and whether she could hold it, and Petitioner likewise answered, "No." Id.
After the fireworks concluded, the four walked down Cedar Street, at which point Tighe came running towards them. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1087. Leblanc confronted Tighe about selling drugs to her younger brother, and Tighe "came up very close" to Leblanc, "shouting and threatening her." Id. Dyer then punched Tighe in the face, who retaliated by pushing her into a nearby fence. Id. While this was taking place, Sullivan and Stevens walked down the street and stood behind Tighe, whom they knew through Tighe's younger brother. Id. Sullivan was sixteenyears old and Stevens was seventeen. Id. at 1088. Sullivan and Stevens said nothing, carried no weapons, and did not contribute to the altercation; Tighe also did not have a weapon. Id. at 1087.
After Tighe pushed Dyer, Gustave and Petitioner approached with their knives displayed. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1087. Tighe turned and ran away down Warwick Street, yelling back to Sullivan and Stevens to do the same. Id. Petitioner and Gustave followed. Id. Petitioner caught up to Tighe and "stabbed him with a knife in the back, inflicting a superficial wound" before Tighe successfully ran away. Id. Petitioner and Gustave then turned their attention to Sullivan and Stevens. Id. Gustave grabbed Stevens and stabbed him in the side, causing him to fall to the ground. Id. Petitioner did not participate in the attack of Stevens, but instead "connected with Sullivan," with Petitioner crouching over and repeatedly stabbing Sullivan in the stomach area, after he had fallen to the ground. Id. at 1087-88. Gustave joined Petitioner in stabbing Sullivan, who appeared to be fighting back, and Leblanc kicked Sullivan in the head several times. Id. at 1088. Dyer may have also kicked Sullivan. Id.
Tighe's stepfather, Michael McCormack ("McCormack"), was in his nearby backyard on Warwick Street when the fight took place. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1088. He heard a " leading McCormack to run down his driveway towards the group to investigate. Id. When McCormack saw Petitioner and Gustave "bending over Sullivan and Stevens," he ran, swearing, towards Petitioner and Gustave and "bowled them over." Id. Petitioner, Gustave, Leblanc, and Dyer ran away. Id. As the group ran, Dyer asked " Id. Petitioner said "I'm on probation . . . I can't believe this." Id. A resident on a porch heard Petitioner say, as the group ran by. Id.
McCormack and his wife, Tighe's mother, called 911 and tended to the two victims who were still at the scene, whom they recognized as Sullivan and Stevens. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1088. Sullivan died within an hour of arriving at the hospital. Id. Stevens lost a kidney and spent thirty days recovering in the hospital. Id.
In September 2004, a Middlesex County grand jury returned indictments against Petitioner and Gustave for five offenses related to the attacks. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1088. Petitioner and Gustave were tried separately. Id. In June 2006, a Middlesex Superior Court jury found Petitioner guilty of the first degree murder of Sullivan on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty (Count One); second degree murder of Sullivan on the theory of deliberate premeditation (Count Two); armed assault with intent to murder Stevens and Tighe (Count Three); assault and battery of Stevens by means of a dangerous weapon, causing serious bodily injury (Count Four); and assault and battery of Tighe by means of a dangerous weapon (Count Five). [S.A. at 1-2]. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Count One, nine to ten years on Count Four, and seven to eight years on Count Five to run on and after the sentence for Count Four but concurrently with the sentence for Count One. [Id. at 1-2, 8]. Counts Two and Three were placed on file with Petitioner's consent. [Id. at 279].
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the SJC on June 27, 2006, [S.A. at 8], but his appeal was stayed on November 30, 2007, when Petitioner filed a pro se post-trial Rule 25(b)(2) motion for a required finding of not guilty or directed lesser verdict with the Superior Court. [S.A. at 8-9, 65-185]. Because the issues raised in that motion included the ineffective assistance of counsel, the Superior Court treated Petitioner's motion as a Rule 30(b) motion. [Id. at 280]. Inaddition to his ineffective assistance claim, Petitioner's motion for a required finding of not guilty asserted that no rational trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he attacked and killed Sullivan, [id. at 69], and that no rational trier of fact could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was more than merely "in the vicinity of the crime, and possibly in the company of the guilty party" in connection with the attack on Stevens, which he argued was insufficient for conviction under a joint venture theory, [id. (citing Commonwealth v. Echavarria, 703 N.E.2d 1137, 1141 (Mass. 1998))]. Lastly, Petitioner contended that even if the SJC found the evidence sufficient to prove he was guilty of murder, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of murder in the first degree because it did not warrant a finding of deliberate premeditation or extreme atrocity or cruelty. [Id. at 72]. The Superior Court denied Petitioner's motion on December 18, 2008. [Id. at 280].
Petitioner's appeal of the denial of this motion was consolidated with his direct appeal of his conviction to the SJC. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1089 n.6. In his appeal of the denied motion, Petitioner claimed that the capital conviction review statute, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 278, § 33E, entitled him to relief because of allegedly improper statements made by the prosecution during closing arguments, errors made by the trial judge in instructing the jury, and other mitigating factors. Id. at 1095.1
The SJC affirmed the lower court's judgments on September 29, 2015. Spinucci, 37 N.E.3d at 1095. Petitioner now seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [ECF Nos. 1, 27], which Respondent Osvaldo Vidal ("Respondent") opposes, [ECF No. 33]. In response to Respondent's memorandum in opposition, Petitioner submitted a reply brief. [ECF No. 38].
Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), a federal court may grant habeas relief on claims previously adjudicated on the merits only after the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); see Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (). A claim for habeas relief is not exhausted unless it has been "fairly and recognizably" presented in state court. Sanchez v. Roden, 753 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial