Commonwealth v. Santana (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-093-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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‑08782 COMMONWEALTH vs. RAMON SANTANA. Hampden. September 7, 2012. ‑ May 29, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Cordy, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. 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. 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. 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 […]