Commonwealth v. Silva (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-094-15)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11096 COMMONWEALTH vs. ROBERT SILVA. Plymouth. February 6, 2015. – June 11, 2015. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Robbery. Felony-Murder Rule. Joint Enterprise. Search and Seizure, Warrant, Expectation of privacy, Clothing. Constitutional Law, Search and seizure, Privacy. Malice. Intent. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Motion to suppress, Instructions to jury, Argument by prosecutor, Presumptions and burden of proof. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on March 23, 2007. A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Paul E. Troy, J., and the cases were tried before Richard J. Chin, J. Chauncey B. Wood for the defendant. Mary E. Lee, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. BOTSFORD, J. The defendant, Robert Silva, stands convicted of murder in the first degree on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony-murder, and also of armed robbery.[1] He appeals the convictions, arguing that (1) his motion to suppress evidence of his sneakers and evidence derived from blood found on his sneakers was improperly denied; (2) the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the theory of joint venture liability where the Commonwealth’s exclusive argument was that the defendant was guilty as a principal; (3) the judge also erred in denying the defendant’s request for an instruction on involuntary manslaughter; and (4) the prosecutor improperly shifted the burden of proof in her closing argument. Finally, the defendant argues that he is entitled to relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. We affirm the defendant’s convictions. Background. 1. Facts. We summarize the facts that the jury could have found at trial.[2] During the afternoon of June 9, 2004, the defendant and Eric Pimental, both eighteen years old, were walking together on a path in the woods in Wareham. They encountered Thomas Loftus, the victim, who was intoxicated,[3] and they agreed that they would “roll” him.[4] After Pimental knocked the victim down to the ground, both Pimental and the defendant began to kick the victim, and the defendant jumped on the victim’s chest. The defendant later stated to David Belmore, a fellow inmate of the Plymouth County correctional facility (PCCF), “You should have seen [the victim’s] eyes bug out when I jumped on his chest,” and that he and Pimental knew the victim was […]