Commonwealth v. Hearns (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-064-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11419 COMMONWEALTH vs. TIMOTHY HEARNS. Suffolk. January 7, 2014. ‑ April 8, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Search and Seizure, Electronic surveillance, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant, Affidavit. Eavesdropping. Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, Search and seizure, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver of constitutional rights. Practice, Criminal, Admissions and confessions, Interlocutory appeal, Motion to suppress, Warrant, Affidavit. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 28, 2010. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Maureen B. Hogan, J. An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Gants, J. in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the appeal was reported by him. Daniel Beck for the defendant. Allison Callahan, Assistant District Attorney, (Mark Hallal, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. CORDY, J. On September 27, 2010, a Suffolk County grand jury indicted the defendant, Timothy Hearns, for the May 8, 2010, murder of fourteen year old Jaewon Martin and wounding of fifteen year old Dejontre Bell, in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston.[1] The defendant was known to be associated with the H-Block gang (H-Block), which was engaged in a feud with the Heath Street gang (Heath Street), on whose turf the shooting took place. The Commonwealth believed that H-Block and Heath Street were highly organized and disciplined groups engaged in the supply and sale of illegal goods in adjoining neighborhoods in Boston, and that the murder was committed in connection with H-Block’s criminal activities. Consequently, during the course of the investigation, it sought to record conversations of those H-Block members whose involvement in the murder was suspected. A cooperating witness consented to the recording of his conversations with the defendant and other H-Block members, and subsequently recorded a conversation with the defendant in which he admitted to the killing. Although this recorded conversation ultimately took place in an automobile and not in a home, out of an abundance of caution the Commonwealth had obtained a warrant, as provided for in Commonwealth v. Blood, 400 Mass. 61, 77 (1987) (warrant required, pursuant to art. 14 of Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, for surreptitious recording of oral communication in private home even if it comes within “one-party consent” exception of G.L. c. 272, § 99 B […]