Preview:

Commonwealth v. Santana Opinion Summary: After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted on two indictments charging murder in the first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder. The jury also found Defendant guilty of several related offenses. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the trial court erred in admitting certain statements Defendant made to police, but the statements' admission did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice; (2) the prosecutor's failure to timely disclose that a key witness had been unable to identify Defendant at voir dire violated Defendant's constitutional rights, but Defendant was not prejudiced by the delay; and (3) defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to suppress the admission of evidence obtained by Massachusetts police based on a pawn ticket that had been seized by New Jersey police after Defendant's arrest.
COMMONWEALTH vs. Ramon SANTANA.
SJC-08782.
Hampden. September 7, 2012. - May 29, 2013.
Homicide. Armed Assault with Intent to Murder. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Armed
Home Invasion. Firearms. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver of
constitutional rights, Assistance of counsel, Witness, Identification. Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel,
Disclosure of evidence, Identification. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Admission by silence, Disclosure of
evidence, Identification. Practice, Criminal, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of
confession, Waiver, Assistance of counsel, Arraignment, Disclosure of evidence, Identification of defendant in
courtroom, Capital case. Search and Seizure, Inventory. Waiver. Identification.

INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 7, 2000.

The cases were tried before Daniel A. Ford, J., and a motion for a new trial, filed on July 21, 2009, was heard by him.

David J. Nathanson (Dan A. Horowitz with him) for the defendant.

Jane Davidson Montori, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.

Present: Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.

LENK, J.

In February, 2001, a Superior Court jury convicted the defendant on two indictments charging murder in the first
degree on theories of deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony-murder. The jury also found the
defendant guilty of armed assault with intent to murder, armed robbery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous
weapon, armed home invasion, and possession of a firearm without a license. [FN1] The defendant appeals from his
convictions and from the denial of his motion for a new trial.

The defendant claims that the admission of his oral and written statements to police on January 12 and January 24,
2000, violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution and art.
12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and that the statements should have been suppressed; that the
prosecutor's failure timely to disclose that a key witness had been unable to identify the defendant at voir dire violated
his right to due process and mandates a new trial; and that the admission of evidence obtained by Massachusetts police
based on a pawn ticket that had been seized by New Jersey police after the defendant's arrest in that State violated his
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of
Rights and requires a new trial.

We reject the defendant's claims, and, after review of the entire record pursuant to our responsibility under G.L. c.
278,

Download sjc-08782.pdf

Massachusetts Law