Commonwealth v. Newson (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-061-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11471 COMMONWEALTH vs. ELBERT NEWSON. Suffolk. December 5, 2014. – April 14, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Joint Enterprise. Constitutional Law, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver of constitutional rights, Fair trial. Evidence, Voluntariness of statement. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Voluntariness of statement, Waiver, Instructions to jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on December 8, 2008. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Christine M. McEvoy, J., and the cases were tried before her Stephen Paul Maidman for the defendant. Elisabeth Martino, Assistant District Attorney (Julie Higgins & David J. Fredette, Assistant District Attorneys, with her) for the Commonwealth. LENK, J. Thomas Webb was fatally shot on September 15, 2008, while petting a neighbor’s dog on a sidewalk outside an apartment building in Boston. The defendant was arrested a short time later, after fleeing from police in a vehicle and then on foot. At trial, the Commonwealth did not offer evidence that the defendant fired the fatal shots. Instead, the Commonwealth proceeded against the defendant on a theory of joint venture with the individual who did fire the fatal shots, and who was in the vehicle with the defendant before the shooting and during the flight from police. The defendant, in turn, conceded his presence at the scene of the shooting and his involvement in the subsequent police chase. He asserted, however, that he did not know that the shooting was planned, and that his role was limited to aiding in the escape after the shooting occurred. In December, 2011, a Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty. The jury also found the defendant guilty of one count of possessing a firearm without a license, and not guilty of another count of possessing a firearm without a license. The defendant contends on appeal that the trial judge erred in (1) denying the defendant’s motion to suppress statements that he made to police following his arrest, which were used to challenge his credibility when he testified at trial; and (2) declining to instruct the jury on the uncharged offense of accessory after the fact, which he argues deprived him of a defense. […]