Commonwealth v. Escobar

229 N.E.3d 579

COMMONWEALTH

v.Rigoberto ESCOBAR.

SJC-13321

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued November 7, 2023.

Decided March 20, 2024.

Homicide. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver, Arraignment, Mistrial, Instructions to jury, Capital case. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver of constitutional rights. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Expert opinion, Fingerprints, Firearm. Witness, Expert. Waiver. Firearms. License.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 14, 2015.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Kathe M. Tuttman, J., and the cases were tried before Elizabeth M. Fahey, J.

Jeffrey L. Baler for the defendant.

Chia Chi Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

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

KAFKER, J.

A jury found the defendant, Rigoberto Escobar, guilty of murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty for the shooting death of Magno Sosa (victim). In the early morning hours of January 17, 2015, after drinking together, the men got into a heated argument that escalated into a fist fight. After they were separated and the victim left the scene, the defendant followed the victim to a dead-end street and shot him three times, before fleeing and hiding the murder weapon.

On direct appeal, the defendant advances several arguments. He contends that his motion to suppress his confession to the police was erroneously denied, either because he was improperly Mirandized, because improper behavior by the police coerced him to confess involuntarily, or because the police allegedly violated his rights to prompt arraignment and telephone use after arrest. Furthermore, he suggests that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a mistrial and erred in declining to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Finally, he contends that improper testimony by the Commonwealth’s experts on fingerprint identification and forensic ballistics created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Separately, the defendant argues that his convictions of possession of a firearm¹ must be vacated under our recent holding in Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 206 N.E.3d 512 (Guardado I), S.C., 493 Mass. 1, 220 N.E.3d 102 (2023) (Guardado II).

We conclude that the defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied, as was his motion for a mistrial. We also conclude that the trial judge did not err in declining to provide a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. The trial judge did err, however, in declining to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Nonetheless, in view of the jury instructions as a whole, the jury's decision to convict him of murder in the first degree and not murder in the second degree, and the paucity of evidence supporting a finding of voluntary manslaughter, the defendant was not prejudiced by the erroneous decision not to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. Lastly, even assuming that testimony by the Commonwealth's experts was improper, the improper testimony did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice because, separate and apart from the expert testimony, the Commonwealth presented overwhelming evidence tying the defendant to the firearm and to the crime. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction of murder in the first degree. However, we vacate the defendant’s firearm convictions and remand for a new trial to give the Commonwealth the opportunity to meet its burden under Guardado II to prove that the defendant was not licensed to carry a firearm.

1. Background. a. Facts. We recite the facts as the jury reasonably could have found them, reserving certain facts for our discussion of the legal issues.

At around 9 p.m. on the evening of January 16, 2015, the defendant went to the Everett home of his friends Johnny Pineda and Oscar Interiano. The three men drank together, and at around 11:45 p.m., they drove in Pineda’s track to a local restaurant. At the restaurant, they met the victim, a Nantucket resident who was visiting friends in Everett. All four remained at the restaurant, socializing and drinking, until 1 a.m. on January 17, when the restaurant closed. Pineda drove the four men back to his house, stopping at the defendant’s house on the way, where the defendant briefly went inside and retrieved a .40 caliber pistol he owned.

Shortly after returning to Interiano and Pineda’s house, the defendant, the victim, and Interiano began arguing.² As the argument escalated, Pineda told the three men that if they had any problems with each other, they should take it outside.

Once outside, the argument turned physical, with the defendant and the victim pushing each other and throwing punches at one another. Interiano attempted to separate the victim and the defendant, but he also pushed and punched the victim. At one point, the victim fell to the ground, and the defendant and Interiano kicked him. After a few minutes of fighting, Interiano succeeded in separating the defendant and the victim, and the victim left the scene. The defendant told Interiano to go inside and open the back door, and that he would meet Interiano there. Interiano went inside, but the defendant followed the victim down the road to Elmwood Street, a dead-end road roughly 200 feet away. The defendant then shot the victim at close range, within one or two feet, through the right eye. The victim fell, and the defendant shot the victim twice more through the back of the head.

The defendant fled the scene, running between houses and jumping over a fence to return to Interiano and Pineda’s house. Interiano opened the back door and let him in. Interiano asked what had happened, and the defendant replied that the man he had had a problem with would not be able to talk. The defendant showed Interiano the firearm and asked to hide it at the house. Interiano replied that he could hide it anywhere but his bedroom, so the men wrapped the firearm in a shirt and hid it in a rolled-up carpet in the basement. Hearing police sirens outside, the defendant told Interiano he would sleep on the couch in the living room, but when Interiano woke up at 6:30 a.m., the defendant was gone.

The defendant testified at trial and denied shooting the victim. He stated that he had retrieved the firearm from his home because Pineda and Interiano had expressed interest in purchasing it and that he hid the firearm in the basement as soon as they arrived at Interiano and Pineda’s house. He acknowledged fighting the victim outside but maintained that after the fist fight he went home and went to sleep.

b. The defendant’s interrogation. We recite the facts as found by the motion judge when considering the defendant’s motion to suppress. See Commonwealth v. Medina, 485 Mass. 296, 299-300, 149 N.E.3d 747 (2020).

Shortly before 9:30 p.m. on January 17, 2015, a group of State police detectives and Everett police officers went to the defendant’s home. Officer Nancy Butler, an Everett police officer and native Spanish speaker, accompanied the officers to ensure the defendant understood what was said to him. The officers entered the defendant’s bedroom with their weapons drawn. They awakened the defendant, who had been asleep, and holstered their weapons. Butler informed the defendant that the officers wished to speak with him and requested that he accompany them to the Everett police station, but that he was not required to do so. The defendant agreed to accompany the officers and was transported to the Everett police station.

At the police station, the defendant waited for over three hours, and then was brought to an interrogation room at around 12:55 a.m. Butler read the defendant the Miranda warnings in Spanish from a booking form and asked the defendant if he understood his rights. The defendant replied, "Yes." Butler asked the defendant to read the Spanish form that she had read to him. The defendant reviewed the forms for a few minutes and stated that he had read the form. Both the defendant and Butler signed the form.

State police Trooper Michael Cashman and Everett police Detective Daniel Tucker proceeded to interview the defendant, with Butler translating. At the beginning of the interview, the officers did not inform the defendant that he was a suspect or tell him why he was being interviewed. After about twenty minutes, however, the officers told the defendant they knew what had happened, that he had to tell them the truth, and that he would only have one chance to tell what happened. The defendant acknowledged that he had had an argument with the victim that had escalated to a fight, but he denied that anything more serious had occurred. The officers told the defendant that they knew he was lying, and that they could not help him unless he told the truth. They also told him that they had recovered security camera footage that proved he was lying, and that they would recover "microscopic" evidence from his apartment that would prove he was lying.

The defendant reiterated that he had gotten into a fist fight with the victim for about five minutes but denied that the victim had been injured, stating that the victim was standing when the defendant walked home after the fight. The officers then told the defendant that the victim had been killed in the same area where the fight took place, and that many people had stated that the defendant carried a gun. The officers also told the defendant that they had been told the defendant was involved with the 18th Street gang, and that the victim was associated with the gang MS-13. The defendant denied carrying a gun and denied having any involvement with gangs.

Later in the interview, the officers informed the defendant that they had searched...