Case Title: Commonwealth v. Rivera

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-12424

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-12424 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  MIGUEL RIVERA. 
 
 
 
Essex.     January 11, 2019. - May 14, 2019. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Homicide.  Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness 
of statement, Hearsay, Spontaneous utterance, Intent.  
Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, 
Voluntariness of statement.  Practice, Criminal, Capital 
case, Motion to suppress, Admissions and confessions, 
Voluntariness of statement, Hearsay, Argument by 
prosecutor.  Intent. 
 
 
 
 
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on February 18, 2015. 
 
 
A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by James 
F. Lang, J., and the case was tried before Richard E. Welch, 
III, J. 
 
 
 
Elizabeth Caddick for the defendant. 
 
Kenneth E. Steinfield, Assistant District Attorney, for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
 
 
LENK, J.  On the evening of February 15, 2015, Omar Mendez 
confirmed his intention to end a long-term relationship with the 
defendant, and began packing his bags to leave.  Following a 
2 
 
heated argument between the two men, the defendant stabbed 
Mendez to death in the bedroom of their apartment, before 
attempting to end his own life.  The defendant argued at trial 
that he should be convicted of voluntary manslaughter due to 
mitigating circumstances, such as heat of passion.  A Superior 
Court jury, however, returned a verdict of murder in the first 
degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme 
atrocity or cruelty.  In this direct appeal, he argues that the 
statements he made to police while in the hospital should have 
been suppressed, given his compromised medical and emotional 
state at the time.  The defendant also maintains that the court 
should reduce the verdict to murder in the second degree, 
pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, in light of certain evidentiary 
issues, prosecutorial error in closing, and the spontaneity of 
the stabbing, and because the evidence of premeditation at trial 
was so tainted that it created a substantial likelihood of a 
miscarriage of justice.  We discern no error warranting a new 
trial and no reason to exercise our extraordinary authority to 
afford relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We accordingly affirm 
the conviction. 
 
1.  Background.  The jury could have found the following.  
The defendant and the victim had been in a romantic relationship 
for approximately twenty-two years.  They lived together in a 
one-bedroom apartment in Lawrence.  In February of 2015, 
3 
 
however, the relationship between the two men had become 
strained, and the victim had been considering ending their 
relationship. 
 
The victim's niece, Bianca Mendez,1 and her mother, Maria 
Valentin, maintained a close relationship with both the victim 
and the defendant.  One day in early February, the defendant 
telephoned Valentin while she was at work.  He asked whether she 
had seen a post on social media by the victim in which he had 
described breaking up with the defendant.  Valentin had not.  
The defendant then asked her whether she would be willing to 
speak with the victim in an attempt to convince him to change 
his mind about ending his relationship with the defendant.  
Valentin agreed to do so. 
 
Shortly thereafter, the defendant and the victim went to 
Valentin's house in Pennsylvania for a weekend visit; they, 
along with Bianca, were to attend a baby shower for another 
relative in New York the following day.  During the course of 
the trip, there was significant tension between the defendant 
and the victim.  At one point, the defendant asked Valentin 
whether she had had a chance to speak with the victim about his 
decision to end his relationship with the defendant.  She told 
the defendant that she had tried, but to no avail; the victim 
                                                          
 
 
1 Because the victim and Bianca Mendez share the same 
surname, we refer to Bianca by her first name.  
4 
 
apparently had "made up his mind about moving on."  The 
defendant also asked Bianca whether she would attempt to speak 
to the victim on his behalf, but she replied that she did not 
want to get involved. 
 
The following week, Valentin and Bianca, along with 
Bianca's one year old daughter, drove to Lawrence to visit the 
victim and the defendant at their apartment for a long weekend.  
The group went out to eat, went to a mall, and socialized 
together for several days.  Bianca and Valentin, however, again 
felt some discomfort due to evident tension between the victim 
and the defendant. 
 
During the course of the visit, the defendant told Valentin 
that he was upset because the victim had obtained a new cellular 
telephone plan at the mall, to replace the plan that he and the 
defendant had shared.  The victim told Valentin that he was 
waiting for the defendant to receive government benefits2 before 
the two of them decided who would move out of their shared 
apartment. 
 
On February 15, 2015, at approximately 4:30 P.M., the 
victim, Valentin, and Bianca were watching a movie in the living 
room; the defendant was alone in the bedroom.  The victim told 
Bianca that he was pursuing a new relationship with someone he 
                                                          
 
 
2 The defendant was disabled.  
5 
 
had met on a social media site; he also showed her a photograph 
of flowers that he had sent the man for Valentine's Day. 
 
During the movie, the victim received a telephone call.  He 
left the apartment through the rear kitchen door, which opened 
onto a stairwell; the victim then continued the conversation on 
the basement stairs.  The defendant, who had overheard the 
victim speaking on the telephone, emerged from the bedroom.  He 
asked Bianca and Valentin if the victim was "on the phone 
again," and whether he was speaking to "that motherfucker."  
They told him that they did not know who had called the victim.  
The defendant then followed the victim to the basement stairs. 
 
After a few minutes, the defendant and the victim returned 
upstairs, shouting at one another.3  The victim said that he did 
not want to argue in front of his family, and retreated into the 
bedroom to charge his telephone; the defendant followed.  At 
some point while the two were in the bedroom, the victim began 
packing a suitcase. 
                                                          
 
 
3 The defendant believed that the victim had been speaking 
with his new boyfriend, and asked why the victim was hurting him 
in that way.  Bianca used her own cellular telephone to make a 
brief recording of the argument and sent it to her daughter's 
father, with whom she had been exchanging text messages, to 
demonstrate why she had been feeling uncomfortable during the 
trip.  The recording captured a conversation between the 
defendant and the victim that alleged infidelity.  It also 
recorded Valentin's statement that she, Bianca, and the baby 
would be leaving. 
6 
 
 
As the defendant and the victim were arguing in the 
bedroom, Bianca and Valentin decided that they should leave, and 
they began to gather their belongings.  The defendant walked 
past them and into the kitchen, where he remained for 
approximately ninety seconds.  He retrieved a knife from the 
kitchen sink, returned to the bedroom, and closed the door 
behind him.  Bianca and Valentin did not see that the defendant 
was carrying a large butcher's knife as he walked past them.4 
 
Seconds later, the women heard the victim yelling 
Valentin's name and pleading for the defendant to "stop."  
Valentin opened the bedroom door and saw the defendant on top of 
the victim.  The defendant said, "I told you I was going to kill 
you," as he repeatedly stabbed the victim.5  Valentin jumped on 
the defendant's back in an effort to stop him, and she pleaded 
with him as well.  The defendant pushed Valentin off of him, and 
she fell to the floor.  She yelled at Bianca to call 911 and to 
                                                          
 
 
4 Bianca and Valentin later identified the knife as one they 
had used earlier in the day to cut a piece of cake and had left 
in the kitchen sink. 
 
 
5 The precise words the defendant used were contested at 
trial, and are a primary component of the defendant's appeal; 
Valentin was impeached by the absence of similar statements in 
her grand jury testimony and in one of her statements to police.  
In his challenge to the credibility of Valentin's later report 
that the defendant spoke those words, the defendant also points 
out that Valentin's statement to a second police officer, which 
also did not contain any report of the defendant having made a 
statement similar to the one contested at trial, was not 
introduced at trial. 
7 
 
get out of the apartment with the baby.6  Valentin then backed 
out of the bedroom and, along with Bianca and the baby, fled up 
the back stairs to a neighboring apartment, where they waited 
for police. 
 
A responding officer arrived within minutes of the 911 
call, and another officer joined him shortly thereafter.  They 
entered the apartment and found the victim lying face down in a 
pool of blood.  He had suffered thirteen stab wounds:  one to 
the head, six to the chest, and six to his arms, forearms, and 
hands.7  The defendant was lying next to the victim, and appeared 
to have life-threatening injuries as well, which officers later 
learned had been self-inflicted; the defendant had multiple stab 
wounds in the chest and had sliced open his wrist.  A large 
knife was lying on the floor nearby.  The officers secured the 
knife and handcuffed the defendant; they then began 
administering first aid until paramedics could reach the scene. 
                                                          
 
 
6 Valentin ultimately spoke with the 911 operator, as Bianca 
had lost her voice due to an illness and was unable to convey 
the details of the emergency over the telephone. 
 
 
7 The medical examiner testified that five of the wounds 
were "stab" wounds, which are deeper than they are wide; eight 
others were "incise" wounds, which are longer cuts on the 
surface than they are deep.  The wound to the head and three of 
the chest wounds were stab wounds.  One of the chest wounds 
pierced the victim's lung and severed his aorta.  The medical 
examiner opined that the victim would have died within minutes, 
and that it would have been difficult to breathe as his lungs 
filled with blood. 
8 
 
 
When paramedics arrived, they promptly determined that any 
attempts to revive the victim would be futile, and focused their 
efforts on the defendant.  After providing emergency treatment 
at the scene, they transported the defendant by ambulance to a 
hospital.  In the ambulance, the defendant was conscious and 
responsive to questions from one of the paramedics, who was 
assessing what had happened.  The defendant told the paramedic 
that he and the victim had been in a relationship for twenty-two 
years, and that the defendant had stabbed the victim because he 
had broken up with the defendant. 
 
After arriving at one hospital, the defendant was then 
transported to another hospital by ambulance.  One of the 
investigating officers rode in the ambulance with the defendant, 
while another followed the ambulance to the hospital.  The 
officers provided the defendant with Miranda warnings twice 
during this period:  once in the ambulance, and again while at 
the hospital.8  After waiving the Miranda rights, the defendant 
agreed to speak with the two officers.9  He told them that he had 
                                                          
 
 
8 The officer who accompanied the defendant in the ambulance 
provided the defendant with Miranda warnings, but did not 
attempt to question him.  Police reiterated the warnings later 
that evening, at the hospital. 
 
 
9 The motion judge determined that the defendant was unable 
to sign a waiver form at the hospital due to the intravenous 
lines in his arms and bandages on his wrist.  The judge found 
that the tone of the questioning was "conversational, low-key, 
respectful, and even, for the most part, sympathetic." 
9 
 
become emotional when he heard the victim speaking to his new 
boyfriend on the telephone; he then took a knife from the 
kitchen and tried to reason with the victim, but ultimately 
"lost it" and "blacked out."10  The defendant also explained to 
the officers that he suffered from depression and anxiety, took 
medication for those conditions, and felt unsafe whenever the 
victim was not with him.  The defendant did not remember how 
many times he had stabbed the victim, but recalled that he tried 
to end his own life afterward. 
 
At trial, the theory of defense was that the defendant had 
become enraged in a heat of passion following the victim's 
telephone call and subsequent decision to pack his bags and 
leave.  The defendant requested that the jury convict him of 
voluntary manslaughter because the Commonwealth had not proved, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, the absence of mitigating factors, 
such as reasonable provocation or heat of passion.  The jury, 
however, returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first 
degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme 
cruelty or atrocity. 
 
2.  Discussion.  In this appeal, the defendant argues that 
a new trial is warranted because he did not knowingly and 
voluntarily waive his Miranda rights or make a voluntary 
                                                          
 
 
10 Deoxyribonucleic acid testing of the knife matched the 
defendant's profile, and did not match the victim's profile. 
10 
 
statement to police, due to his compromised medical and 
emotional state in the hospital.  In the alternative, he 
contends that when certain evidentiary issues and errors in the 
prosecution's closing are considered in concert with the 
spontaneity of the attack, a reduced verdict of murder in the 
second degree, pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, would be more 
consonant with justice.  The defendant also maintains that the 
stabbing here was not more aggravated or unusual than other 
instances of homicide so as to sustain a conviction on the 
theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.  We address each of his 
claims in turn. 
 
a.  Motion to suppress.  The defendant contends that the 
statements he made to police should have been suppressed because 
he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his rights, and his 
statements were not voluntary, given the physical and emotional 
distress he was experiencing at the hospital.  Following an 
evidentiary hearing, a Superior Court judge, who was not the 
trial judge, denied the motion to suppress.  He found that the 
defendant had responded appropriately to the officers' 
preliminary questions gauging his alertness, as well as to 
questions about his level of pain, his medications, and his 
state of orientation.  The judge noted that the defendant also 
responded appropriately to more substantive questions, and 
evidently understood the circumstances and nature of the 
11 
 
questioning.11  The motion judge found also that the entirety of 
the interview was conducted in a sympathetic and conversational 
tone to accommodate the defendant's fragile state.  The judge 
determined that the Commonwealth had demonstrated, beyond a 
reasonable doubt, that the defendant's physical and mental 
condition did not negate his ability knowingly and voluntarily 
to waive his rights, or to provide a statement to police. 
 
"In reviewing a decision on a motion to suppress, we accept 
the judge's subsidiary findings absent clear error, but conduct 
an independent review of [his or her] ultimate findings and 
conclusions of law" (quotation and citation omitted).  See 
Commonwealth v. Jones-Pannell, 472 Mass. 429, 431 (2015).  We 
defer to the judge's determination of the weight and credibility 
to be given to oral testimony presented at a motion hearing, but 
we may independently review the documentary evidence before the 
judge.  See Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645, 655 (2018). 
 
Where, as here, a defendant makes statements to police 
during a custodial interrogation, the Commonwealth bears the 
                                                          
 
 
11 As to the nature of the questioning, the motion judge 
also found that the defendant was able to detail the dispute 
with his boyfriend, the stabbing, and the suicide attempt.  He 
also made statements attempting to minimize his culpability, 
including repeatedly noting that he suffered from mental 
illnesses and had "blacked out" during the stabbings.  See 
Commonwealth v. Tremblay, 480 Mass. 645, 656-658 (2018) 
(defendant was responsive to police questions and even minimized 
his culpability, leading to conclusion that statements were 
voluntarily given). 
12 
 
burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the 
defendant's waiver of his or her Miranda rights was "voluntary, 
knowing, and intelligent."12  See Commonwealth v. Clarke, 461 
Mass. 336, 342 (2012); Commonwealth v. Gaboriault, 439 Mass. 84, 
89 (2003).  The Commonwealth also must show that any statement 
made after a waiver was voluntary, as a product of the 
defendant's "rational intellect and free will."  See 
Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395, 403 (2014).  "Although we 
inquire separately into the voluntariness of the defendant's 
waiver of Miranda rights and the voluntariness of the 
statements, both inquiries require us to examine the totality of 
the circumstances surrounding the making of the statements to 
ensure that the defendant's will was not overborne."  Id.  
Relevant factors in this analysis include the manner in which 
the interrogation is conducted, whether Miranda warnings were 
given, the defendant's physical and mental condition, and the 
defendant's individual characteristics, such as age, education, 
intelligence, and emotional stability.  See id.  The court will 
indulge all "reasonable presumption[s] against waiver."  
Commonwealth v. Bradshaw, 385 Mass. 244, 267 (1982). 
                                                          
 
 
12 It is undisputed that the defendant was in custody for 
purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 451 (1966).  See 
generally Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201, 211-212 (2001). 
13 
 
 
We discern no error in the motion judge's findings that the 
defendant's mental capacities and rational intellect were not 
impaired to such a degree as to render his waiver or statements 
involuntary.  Although statements that are "attributable in 
large measure to a defendant's debilitated condition" are not 
considered to be voluntarily made (citation omitted), see 
Commonwealth v. Waweru, 480 Mass. 173, 180 (2018), "[t]he fact 
that a defendant may have been in a disturbed emotional state, 
or even suicidal, does not automatically make statements 
involuntary," see Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 433 Mass. 549, 555 
(2001).  Indeed, we repeatedly have held that a defendant who is 
suffering from emotional or physical distress still may provide 
voluntary statements so long as he or she demonstrates an 
intelligent comprehension of his or her Miranda rights and of 
the circumstances.  See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Bell, 473 Mass. 
131, 141-142 (2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2467 (2016) 
(statements made by defendant were voluntary despite significant 
burns and intoxication because he "demonstrated awareness of the 
situation at the scene . . . and did not show any great 
confusion"); Commonwealth v. Clark, 432 Mass. 1, 11, 12-13 
(2000) (statements made by defendant shortly after he sustained 
14 
 
gunshot wound to head were voluntary, given evidence that he had 
been "alert and oriented").13 
 
Similarly, here, the defendant was not demonstrating 
confusion or otherwise "acting irrationally [during the 
interrogation]" while speaking with police (citation omitted).  
See Commonwealth v. McNulty, 458 Mass. 305, 328 (2010).  
Although the defendant was suffering from physical and emotional 
injuries, the motion judge found that any medications he took 
for those conditions or for his anxiety and depression did not 
hinder his ability to think clearly.  See Waweru, 480 Mass. 
at 176-177, 181 (despite defendant's suicide attempt after 
stabbing victim, his statements to psychiatrist and police were 
voluntary, as he understood their questions and responded 
appropriately); Bell, 473 Mass. at 142 (relevant evidence is 
suspect's "rational understanding of the situation and a 
                                                          
 
 
13 The defendant would have us distinguish his case from 
others concerning an injured suspect's statement, on the ground 
that police did not know whether the defendant was taking 
medication, or otherwise presented with a condition that might 
hinder his ability to think clearly, because the defendant's 
treatment providers had refused to give police access to his 
medical records.  As the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6, prevents medical 
professionals from disclosing a patient's medical records, 
police are unable, in many instances, to ascertain a defendant's 
medical information.  We have not adopted an approach that looks 
solely at one such factor, and decline to do so today.  See 
Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395, 403 (2014) (requiring us 
to examine "totality of the circumstances" in voluntariness 
inquiry). 
15 
 
voluntary decision to speak to police").  Because the 
defendant's waiver of rights and his statements to police were 
knowing and voluntary, we discern no error in the denial of his 
motion to suppress. 
 
b.  Relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  With respect to the 
theory of deliberate premeditation, the defendant challenges 
testimony from Bianca and Valentin about the statements he made 
as he stabbed the victim.  He also contends that the prosecutor 
argued facts not in evidence and misstated the law regarding 
issues that went to the heart of the defense.  The defendant 
maintains that, in light of the spontaneity of the attack, the 
evidence of deliberate premeditation was so "tainted" that a 
verdict on this theory cannot stand.  See Commonwealth v. Glass, 
401 Mass. 799, 802 n.2 (1988) (even where evidence of 
premeditation is sufficient, it nonetheless may be "so tainted 
by the error that it created a substantial likelihood of a 
miscarriage of justice").  In this regard, as far as we can 
tell, the defendant posits that the cumulative effect of the 
issues warrants the exercise of our extraordinary authority 
under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the verdict to murder in 
the second degree. 
 
i.  Witness testimony.  The defendant argues that Bianca's 
testimony about his statement to the victim ("I told you I was 
going to kill you") constituted inadmissible hearsay.  He also 
16 
 
claims that, because Valentin was substantially impeached with 
her omission of the defendant's statement in her report to 
police and to the grand jury, Valentin's trial testimony should 
be given no weight.  Because neither statement was objected to 
at trial, we review for a substantial likelihood of a 
miscarriage of justice.  See Commonwealth v. Seino, 479 Mass. 
463, 470 (2018). 
 
In regard to Bianca's testimony, the defendant contends 
that it constitutes impermissible hearsay because his statements 
were relayed to Bianca, who does not speak Spanish fluently, 
through her mother, who does.  In general, "evidence based on a 
chain of statements is admissible only if each out-of-court 
assertion falls within an exception to the hearsay rule."  
Commonwealth v. Alcantara, 471 Mass. 550, 558 (2015), quoting 
Commonwealth v. McDonough, 400 Mass. 639, 643 n.8 (1987).  See 
Mass. G. Evid. § 805 (2019) (statements of multiple out-of-court 
declarants are admissible only if each statement falls within 
established hearsay exception). 
 
Each of the statements conveyed in the chain at issue here 
falls within an exception to the hearsay rule and therefore is 
admissible.  First, the defendant's statements are not 
considered hearsay.  See Commonwealth v. Bright, 463 Mass. 421, 
426 n.8 (2012) (admissions of party opponent are not considered 
hearsay).  Second, Bianca testified that, although her mother 
17 
 
told her what the defendant had said, she had heard and 
understood portions of the defendant's statement in Spanish 
before her mother translated it.14  Insofar as Valentin relayed 
the rest of the defendant's statement to Bianca, it was 
nonetheless admissible under the spontaneous or excited 
utterance exception to the rule against hearsay.  See Mass. 
G. Evid. § 803(2) (2019) (spontaneous utterance if event is 
"sufficiently startling to render inoperative the normal 
reflective thought processes of the observer, and . . . the 
declarant's statement was a spontaneous reaction to the 
occurrence").  Indeed, both women were percipient witnesses to 
the stabbing, relaying startling information to the 911 
operator, and fled the apartment in fear for their lives.  Cf. 
Alcantara, 471 Mass. at 558 (statements made on 911 call, 
conveying information relayed by different percipient witness, 
were admissible as excited utterances). 
 
Moreover, we are unpersuaded by the contention that, 
because Valentin was impeached with a prior inconsistent 
statement or omission, no weight should be given to her trial 
testimony.  Where trial counsel carefully pursued and developed 
the inconsistencies in her testimony during cross-examination, 
                                                          
 
 
14 Specifically, Bianca testified that she understood the 
Spanish words for "kill you," and that the word "motherfucker" 
was uttered in English. 
18 
 
the credibility of her statements was a matter properly reserved 
for the jury.  See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Cannon, 449 Mass. 462, 
469 n.17 (2007) (credibility of witness's statement is province 
of fact finder); Commonwealth v. Triplett, 398 Mass. 561, 567 
(1986) (fact finder must determine weight and credibility of 
testimony).15  We thus discern no substantial likelihood of a 
miscarriage of justice stemming from the admission of, or weight 
given to, either witness's testimony. 
 
ii.  Prosecutor's closing argument.  The defendant 
challenges the propriety of the prosecutor's closing argument in 
two respects.  First, he contends that, by speculating about the 
defendant's state of mind when he closed the bedroom door, the 
prosecutor argued facts that were not supported by the evidence, 
and he attempted to negate the defendant's statement that he had 
"lost it" with an argument about premeditated calculation.  The 
defendant further argues that the prosecutor misstated the 
                                                          
 
 
15 Although the defendant does not raise the issue, we 
conclude that trial counsel's failure to further impeach 
Valentin with the omission of the defendant's statement, "I told 
you I was going to kill you," in her second statement to police 
did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.  Trial 
counsel impeached Valentin with this omission from her grand 
jury testimony, as well as through another witness, the 
investigating officer, who testified that if Valentin had made 
such a claim, he likely would have included it in his police 
report.  See Commonwealth v. Fisher, 433 Mass. 340, 357 (2001) 
(counsel not ineffective in failing to impeach witness with 
prior inconsistent statement where witness already was impeached 
through other means). 
19 
 
applicable law by repeatedly telling the jury that sadness, 
anger, hurt, and frustration do not create "justification" for 
murder.  The defendant contends that the repeated use of the 
word "justification" implied that he was required to demonstrate 
a justification for the killing in order to succeed in his 
defense.  Because there was no objection to either statement, we 
review for a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.  
See Seino, 479 Mass. at 470. 
 
A prosecutor may not "misstate the evidence or refer to 
facts not in evidence," and may not play "on the jury's sympathy 
or emotions, or comment on the consequences of a verdict" 
(citation omitted).  See Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1, 
19 (2014).  A prosecutor may, however, argue zealously "for a 
conviction based on the evidence and on inferences that may 
reasonably be drawn from the evidence."  See id., quoting 
Commonwealth v. Kozec, 399 Mass. 514, 516 (1987).  "Remarks made 
during closing arguments are considered in the context of the 
entire argument, and in light of the judge's instructions to the 
jury and the evidence at trial."  Commonwealth v. 
Viriyahiranpaiboon, 412 Mass. 224, 231 (1992).  "The absence of 
an objection at trial may be viewed as 'some indication that the 
tone [and] manner . . . of the now challenged aspects of the 
prosecutor's argument were not unfairly prejudicial.'"  
Carriere, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Mello, 420 Mass. 375, 
20 
 
380 (1995).  Moreover, "[i]nstructions may mitigate any 
prejudice in the final argument."  See Carriere, supra, quoting 
Kozec, supra at 517. 
 
First, the defendant claims that the prosecutor 
mischaracterized his statements to police.  In this regard, the 
prosecutor argued: 
"And [the defendant] walked back into that bedroom.  He 
says he was in a rage, but he thought about it enough, he 
closed the door behind him.  He even told the police that 
he closed the door behind him because he didn't want the 
police to think that [Valentin] and Bianca were just 
watching him as he did this.  He closed the door behind 
him.  And that's when he attacked [the victim]." 
 
As best we can tell, the defendant takes issue with the portion 
of that statement discussing his state of mind as he closed the 
door, especially because it negated the defendant's earlier 
statement in which he said he had blacked out in a rage.  The 
prosecutor's argument, however, is a fair inference drawn from 
the evidence at trial.  See Carriere, 470 Mass. at 22 
(prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences grounded in 
evidence).  In fact, Valentin and Bianca both testified that the 
defendant walked past them and closed the door behind him before 
stabbing the victim.  The defendant also told police, "Obviously 
I closed the doors when it happened."  Although perhaps 
hyperbolic, as the prosecutor surely could not have known what 
the defendant was thinking as he closed the door, the 
prosecutor's remarks did not cross the line between fair and 
21 
 
improper argument in light of the evidence presented at trial.  
Even if it were not a fair inference, the judge properly 
instructed the jury on the role of closing arguments, the 
reasonable inferences the jurors may draw from evidence at 
trial, and their role as the sole finders of fact.16  See id. at 
19.  Were there any question about a misstep in the prosecutor's 
statements, it did not create a substantial likelihood of a 
miscarriage of justice.  See id.; Mello, 420 Mass. at 380. 
 
Next, the defendant asserts that the prosecutor misstated 
the law of voluntary manslaughter and mitigating circumstances 
in closing, when he repeatedly used the word "justification."  
In this regard, the prosecutor argued: 
"It's not unusual in a breakup that you are scared or 
angry or frightened.  But those things, ladies and 
gentlemen, are not mitigation.  They are not a 
justification for what the defendant did.  They are 
not an excuse to commit murder. . . .  [U]nhappiness 
is not a justification for murder.  Sadness is not a 
justification for murder. . . .  Nobody wants to see 
somebody that they loved walk out the door.  But that 
is not a justification for killing somebody. . . .  A 
broken heart is not justification for murder." 
 
We agree that the repeated use of the word "justification" 
throughout the prosecutor's closing was more than just an 
exercise in searching for a synonym for mitigation; it 
                                                          
 
 
16 Moreover, prior to closing arguments, the judge told the 
jury:  "I always instruct jurors, do not take notes on the 
closing arguments of counsel.  And why do I tell you that?  Any 
ideas?"  A juror promptly responded that it was because a 
closing argument "is not evidence." 
22 
 
improperly suggested to the jury that the defendant was required 
to demonstrate justification for killing the victim.  Apart from 
being colloquially inapposite, the two words have distinct 
meanings in the law.  See Commonwealth v. Glover, 459 Mass. 836, 
842 (2011) (noting difference between justification defense, 
which could result in acquittal, and mitigation defense, such as 
heat of passion, which at best yields conviction of lesser 
offense of voluntary manslaughter). 
 
Notwithstanding the inappropriate nature of these remarks, 
the judge properly instructed the jury on the law of mitigation 
and voluntary manslaughter in his final charge, as well as the 
Commonwealth's burden of proof in these regards.  See 
Commonwealth v. Morales, 461 Mass. 765, 784-785 (2012) 
(prosecutor's misstatement of law was error, but judge's 
instructions rendered error harmless).  In light of these 
instructions, which we must presume were heeded, see id. at 784, 
we conclude that the prosecutor's misstatements did not create a 
substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. 
 
iii.  Premeditation.  The defendant contends also that 
there was no evidence of a plan to kill here, such that a 
conviction of murder in the second degree would be more 
consonant with justice.17  In determining whether a conviction of 
                                                          
 
 
17 The defendant also contends that the trial judge abused 
his discretion in denying a motion to reduce the verdict 
23 
 
murder in the first degree is consonant with justice, "a primary 
consideration . . . is whether the killing reflects spontaneity 
rather than premeditation" (quotations and citation omitted).  
See Commonwealth v. Fernandez, 480 Mass. 334, 344 (2018).  "In 
order to prove deliberate premeditation, the Commonwealth must 
show that 'the plan to kill was formed after deliberation and 
reflection.'"  Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Bolling, 462 Mass. 
440, 446 (2012).  Although no particular length of time is 
required, "the Commonwealth must demonstrate that the defendant 
had the opportunity to reflect, however brief," before making a 
decision to kill.  See Fernandez, supra at 345 (noting that key 
is "sequence of the thought process rather than the time which 
is taken to think" [citation omitted]).  As each case depends on 
its own particular set of facts, no single factor is 
determinative.  Id.  See Commonwealth v. Colleran, 452 Mass. 
417, 431-432 (2008) (setting forth range of factors to 
consider). 
 
This case, however, does not suggest plain spontaneity or 
tainted premeditation.  Rather, during a quarrel with his long-
time boyfriend, the defendant left the bedroom, walked into the 
                                                          
 
pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 25 (b) (2), as amended, 420 Mass. 
1502 (1995).  For many of the same reasons discussed, we discern 
no abuse of discretion in the motion judge's decision to deny 
the defendant's motion to reduce the verdict.  See Commonwealth 
v. Perez, 477 Mass. 677, 681-682 (2017). 
24 
 
kitchen, waited approximately ninety seconds, picked up a knife, 
and returned to the bedroom, closing the door behind him before 
stabbing his partner to death.  Cf. Fernandez, 480 Mass. at 345 
(no spontaneity where defendant briefly left scene and returned 
with weapon to kill victim); Commonwealth v. Watkins, 373 Mass. 
849, 852 (1977) (evidence that defendant, after quarrel with 
victim, went to kitchen, picked up knife, and returned to stab 
victim sufficient to sustain conviction of murder in first 
degree).  On these facts, we discern no evidence of spontaneity 
or "tainted" premeditation that, in light of the combined weight 
of other purported errors, warrants the exercise of our 
extraordinary authority to reduce the verdict under G. L. 
c. 278, § 33E. 
 
c.  Extreme atrocity or cruelty.  In regard to the second 
theory on which his conviction rests, the defendant contends 
that the killing in this case was not extremely atrocious or 
cruel because he did not take pleasure in the victim's 
suffering.  He also points to data indicating that stabbings are 
not a particularly "extreme" or unusual method of homicide; 
indeed, the use of a stabbing or cutting instrument is the 
second most common form of homicide in the United States, 
following firearms.  See generally United States Department of 
Justice, Crime in the United States:  Murder by State, Types of 
Weapons, 2015, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-
25 
 
in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20 [https://perma.cc/KH7N-TG3K].  
As stabbings are so common, the defendant cautions that the 
court should avoid sweeping every death by stabbing into the 
category of murder in the first degree on a theory of extreme 
atrocity or cruelty.  Although the defendant is correct that a 
killing by stabbing does not necessarily surpass the ordinary 
cruelty inherent in the taking of a human life, the evidence in 
this case demonstrated extreme atrocity or cruelty. 
 
In determining whether a killing was committed with extreme 
atrocity or cruelty, we look to a set of well-established 
factors.  See Commonwealth v. Cunneen, 389 Mass. 216, 227 
(1983).  These include "indifference to or taking pleasure in 
the victim's suffering, consciousness and degree of suffering of 
the victim, extent of physical injuries, number of blows, manner 
and force with which delivered, instrument employed, and 
disproportion between the means needed to cause death and those 
employed."  Id. 
 
Here, the defendant stabbed the victim thirteen times, 
including inflicting wounds through his head and his chest, 
which caused the victim's lungs to collapse and fill with blood.  
One of the wounds was more than seven inches deep.  The victim's 
death was not instantaneous, and he suffered several defensive 
wounds.  He also called out for help while he was being stabbed, 
and begged the defendant to stop.  Moreover, Valentin attempted 
26 
 
to intervene, but, despite her best efforts, the defendant 
forcefully pushed her aside and continued stabbing the victim.  
Given the number of blows, the manner of attack, the size of the 
butcher's knife, and the medical expert's opinion concerning the 
likely degree of suffering on the part of the victim, we 
conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the 
theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty in this case.  Compare 
Commonwealth v. Young, 461 Mass. 198, 204 (2012) (defendant 
stabbed victim four times and inflicted eight superficial cuts; 
victim experienced conscious suffering before his death). 
 
Finally, pursuant to our duty, we have carefully reviewed 
the record and see no other cause to exercise our extraordinary 
power to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed.