Facts: This is an
appeal from the defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree and two
firearm violations based on a violation of Commonwealth v. Miranda,
improper denial of his motion to suppress statements, and insufficient
instruction with respect to “honest but mistaken identification.”
The victim was shot and killed in New Bedford. Three
witnesses saw the events of the shooting and testified to their own accounts.
One witness, given the pseudonym Claire, was given a cash reward from the New
Bedford Chamber of Commerce reward program, which was established to assist in
the resolution of unsolved homicide cases.
Issue #1: Were the
requirements established in Commonwealth v. Miranda pertaining to cash
rewards for witnesses satisfied? Yes, Miranda requires that (1) the
payment arrangement must be disclosed to each defendant before the proceeding
at which the witness testifies (2) the defendant must be afforded an
opportunity to cross-examine the witness about the fee (3) the court must
instruct the jury about the heightened scrutiny given to testimony under fee
arrangement (4) there can be no indication that the government is sponsoring or
suborning perjury. In this case, the requirements of pretrial disclosure and
heightened scrutiny standard instruction are at issue.
(a) As to the nondisclosure, the Commonwealth addressed this
issue at sidebar by expressing concern that Claire had not been examined with
respect to the reward program. The defendant was able to cross-examine the
witness and stated that the issue had been satisfied with the information he
obtained. While Miranda had not
been decided at trial, the court stated that the requirements were made pursuant
to rule 14 of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure. As such, the
defendant knew he was waiving an existing right when he did so at trial.
(b) As to the requirement of a heightened scrutiny
instruction, the court provided an instruction, which stated that “you may also
consider a witness’s motive for testifying and whether they display any bias in
testifying and whether the witness has an interest in the outcome of the case.”
The court reasoned that while the instruction may not be as extensive as that
given in Miranda, it goes to the same premise, therefore satisfying the
requirement.
Issue #2: Did the
judge err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress statements made to the
police? No, the defendant had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda
rights and the defendant did not clearly request an attorney after such a
waiver. While the defendant made mention of an attorney, the court held that
such statements failed to rise to an unequivocal request for counsel.
Issue #3: Did the
judge err in not making a sua sponte instruction on honest mistaken
identification? No, such an instruction
should be given when the facts permit it and the defendant request it. The
judge is not required to provide such an instruction in the absence of such a
request.
Judgment:
Affirmed. (KL)
