Commonwealth v. Walters

485 Mass. 271

149 N.E.3d 725

COMMONWEALTH

v.Lucas WALTERS.

SJC-11769

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk..

Argued February 14, 2020

Decided July 23, 2020

William S. Smith, Northboro, for the defendant.

Pamela Alford, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ.

LENK, J.

The defendant was convicted by a Superior Court jury of murder in the first degree, on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty, in the stabbing death of his neighbor, Jeffrey Phillips.¹ In this appeal, the defendant asserts multiple errors in the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress, in the trial proceedings themselves, and in the denial of his motion to set aside the verdict. The defendant also asks us to exercise our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the verdict or to order a new trial. We affirm the convictions, and we discern no reason to use our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.

Facts. We recite the facts as the jury could have found them, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, reserving certain details for later discussion.

In the summer of 2009, the victim and his girlfriend shared an apartment in Braintree in the same three-unit apartment building as the defendant. On the afternoon of Friday, July 24, 2009, the victim left work and returned to his apartment. At approximately 6:45 P.M. , he spoke to his mother by telephone and made plans to meet her the following day. Later that evening, the victim spoke by telephone with a friend for about an hour.

At some point thereafter, the victim joined the defendant in a makeshift shed that the defendant had built on the property. The defendant was, by his own account, "messed up"; he had gotten drunk, had smoked "crack" cocaine and marijuana, and had taken Xanax. The defendant asked the victim to lend him money; the victim refused and became angry, because the defendant already owed him money for some drugs the victim had provided him. The defendant told police that a fight ensued, and that the victim attacked him with a rake, injuring his legs. The defendant then hit the victim multiple times in the head and back with an axe.²

The defendant covered the body with a tarp, and put mulch over the blood on the pavement. When he saw his landlord later that weekend, he explained that he had spilled oil in the shed, and had placed the mulch to soak it up. The defendant's girlfriend had planned to see him that Friday evening, and had asked him to attend her family reunion on Saturday, but the defendant called her to let her know that he was not going to meet her.

On Saturday, July 25, 2009, the defendant used the victim's credit card to purchase gasoline. He also entered the victim's apartment and removed the victim's television, laptop, and video game system; the defendant traded these items for crack cocaine, which he obtained from his long-time supplier in Springfield. The defendant drove the victim's body to a rural area in West Suffield, Connecticut, near where the defendant lived during the week on property belonging to his girlfriend's parents. The body was wrapped in tarps tied with rope, and placed near an irrigation pond. The defendant put the axe, the remaining rope, and a knife he had used to cut the rope in the toolbox on a trailer he owned.

During the afternoon of Sunday, July 26, 2009, the defendant arrived at his girlfriend's parents' house in Southwick; he and his girlfriend returned to Braintree that evening. During the trip, the conversation was tense, and it was apparent to his girlfriend that something was wrong.

Early on Monday morning, July 27, 2009, the defendant returned to western Massachusetts, where he worked. He remained in western Massachusetts on Monday and Tuesday. His girlfriend's father saw the defendant on Monday, and noted that the defendant seemed "hurried." On Tuesday, July 28, 2009, the defendant told his girlfriend's mother that he loved her, and thanked her for letting him be a part of her family.

On Wednesday, July 29, 2009, the defendant returned to Braintree. At approximately 5:30 P.M. , he spoke with the third tenant in his and the victim's apartment building. At around the same time, the defendant's girlfriend returned home from work. The defendant was crying and hanging onto her, and he would not eat. Eventually, they decided to drive to a store to rent a movie. During the drive, the defendant began apologizing to her for what was happening. After a while, she told the defendant that she wanted to go home. The defendant initially headed toward their apartment, but then passed it and drove to the Braintree police station. When he drove into the parking lot, he said that he had gotten into a fight with the victim and accidentally had hit him too hard. The defendant then told his girlfriend that he loved her, and walked to the police station.

Detectives Robert Joseph and Michael Reynolds of the Braintree police were standing outside the police station at approximately 8 P.M. when the defendant approached and said that he "really need[ed] to speak to someone"; Joseph told the defendant to take a seat in the lobby. The defendant soon reemerged, agitated and distraught, and reiterated his earlier statement. The detectives, who knew that the victim had been reported missing,³ asked the defendant what he knew about the person; the defendant replied, "I killed him." Joseph and Reynolds handcuffed the defendant and read him the Miranda⁴ rights. The defendant indicated that he wished to speak with police.

Sergeant Timothy Cohoon and Detective Sergeant Edward Querzoli interviewed the defendant. During the interview, Detectives Thomas Molloy and Mark Sherrick were dispatched to the victim's and the defendant's apartment building to secure the scene. Molloy put crime scene tape around the shed, and noticed a rake behind it, but did not enter the shed itself.

The defendant told the detectives that he had gotten drunk, smoked crack cocaine, and taken Xanax, that the victim had attacked him with a rake, and that he "lost it" and hit the victim in the head with an axe. The detectives noticed scratch marks on the defendant's legs, and inquired whether he had been wandering through any bushes. The defendant said that he had not; later in the interview, the defendant indicated that the scratches on his legs were sustained when the victim hit him with the rake. The defendant told the officers that he had used the victim's credit card and had taken items from the victim's apartment and traded them to his supplier for drugs. He explained the manner in which he had disposed of the victim's body, and said that the axe could be found in his trailer, which was parked on his girlfriend's parents' property in Southwick. The defendant drew a map of the area where he had put the victim's body, and agreed to lead the officers there. Later that evening, the defendant traveled with police to West Suffield, Connecticut, and guided them to the location.

Prior proceedings. The defendant was indicted on charges of murder in the first degree, G. L. c. 265, § 1 ; breaking and entering into the dwelling of another during the day time, with the intent to commit a felony while armed, G. L. c. 266, § 18 ; and larceny from a building, G. L. c. 266, § 20. Prior to trial, he filed a motion to suppress his statements to police on the ground that they were involuntary. The motion was denied, and a video recording of the interview was played for the jury. The Commonwealth proceeded at trial on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.

The defendant was convicted of all charges; on the charge of murder in the first degree, he was convicted solely on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. After his convictions, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the verdict; he argued, inter alia, that the jury returned an inconsistent verdict, in light of the acquittal on the theory of deliberate premeditation. The motion was denied, and the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.⁵

Discussion. The defendant asserts numerous errors in the trial proceedings, including: (1) the motion judge's improper denial of his motion to suppress his statement to police; (2) the introduction of inflammatory photographs; (3) the absence of an instruction on "lost evidence"; (4) the introduction in evidence of knives that might have been used to cut the rope that bound the victim; (5) multiple improper statements in the prosecutor's closing argument; and (6) a legally inconsistent verdict. The defendant also asks us to use our authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the degree of guilt or to order a new trial.

1. Denial of motion to suppress statements. Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress his statements to police on the grounds that his physical and mental condition rendered him unable validly to waive his Miranda rights and give police a voluntary statement. After an evidentiary hearing,⁶ the motion judge determined that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights, and that the defendant's will was not overborne to the extent that his statements were not a free and voluntary act. Accordingly, the judge denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant does not challenge the judge's findings of fact, but argues that the judge's ultimate findings and conclusions of law did not consider adequately the defendant's mental state.

a. Motion judge's findings of fact. On July 29, 2009, the defendant approached detectives at the Braintree police station and said that he really "need[ed] to speak to someone" about a missing person. After he said that he had killed the person, the defendant was handcuffed, brought into an interview room, and seated at a table, where he began to cry. Sherrick entered the room and obtained the defendant's permission to record the interview; the defendant agreed, but then appeared to gag, and Sherrick...