Commonwealth v. Hoose (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-040-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑10872 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBIN ANTHONY HOOSE. Franklin. November 8, 2013. ‑ March 11, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide. Constitutional Law, Assistance of counsel, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver of constitutional rights. Due Process of Law, Assistance of counsel. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Assistance of counsel, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver, Venue, Instructions to jury. Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, Third‑party culprit, Expert opinion. Waiver. Witness, Expert. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 14, 2007. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence and a motion for a change of venue were heard by Bertha D. Josephson, J., and the cases were tried before her. Elizabeth Caddick for the defendant. Thomas H. Townsend, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. SPINA, J. In this case, the defendant, Robin Anthony Hoose, was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree, one for the death of Irene Pierce on the theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty and one for the death of Frank Blanchard on the theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and deliberate premeditation. On appeal, the defendant asserts error in (1) the judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress his statements to police, (2) the judge’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a change of venue, (3) the judge’s denial of the admission of certain “third-party culprit” evidence and of the defendant’s request for a third-party culprit instruction at trial, and (4) the judge’s grant of the Commonwealth’s motion to exclude expert testimony regarding the phenomenon of false confessions. The defendant also asks us to exercise our power under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to vacate his convictions or to reduce them to murder in the second degree. We affirm the defendant’s convictions and decline to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 1. Background. We recite the facts the jury could have found at trial, reserving additional facts for our analysis of the issues raised on appeal. At approximately 12:30 A.M. on July 17, 2007, the defendant encountered Bill Goly and Goly’s girl friend, Emma Oliver, outside a tavern. Oliver testified at trial that she and Goly then accompanied the defendant to his apartment and there encountered the eventual victims, Oliver’s friend, Irene […]