Case Title: Commonwealth v. Colon

Citation: 

Docket Number: SJC-11610

State: massachusetts

Court: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Date: 2019-10-22T00:00:00Z

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-11610 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  DENNIS COLON. 
 
 
 
Essex.     February 8, 2019. - October 22, 2019. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, & Kafker, JJ. 
 
 
Homicide.  Constitutional Law, Admissions and confessions, 
Voluntariness of statement, Assistance of counsel.  
Evidence, Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of 
statement.  Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, 
Admissions and confessions, Voluntariness of statement, 
Instructions to jury, Capital case. 
 
 
 
 
Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on May 27, 2010. 
 
 
The cases were tried before Richard E. Welch, III, J., and 
a motion for a new trial, filed on October 24, 2014, was heard 
by him. 
 
 
 
James W. Rosseel for the defendant. 
 
Catherine Langevin Semel, Assistant District Attorney, for 
the Commonwealth. 
 
 
 
GAZIANO, J.  In June 2012, a Superior Court jury convicted 
the defendant of murder in the first degree on a theory of 
felony-murder in connection with the May 2009 shooting death of 
2 
 
 
Juan Caba (victim).1  The defendant's motion for a new trial was 
denied after an evidentiary hearing.  The matter is before this 
court on the defendant's direct appeal, consolidated with his 
appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial. 
 
The defendant argues that a new trial is necessary because 
of the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel.  He contends 
that counsel failed to make use of evidence that the defendant 
had engaged in a telephone conversation with his girlfriend, 
while in police custody and using a police officer's cellular 
telephone, to argue that the defendant's statements to police 
the following morning were not voluntarily made.  Relatedly, the 
defendant also contends that counsel erred in not using 
recordings of the defendant's custodial interviews on the 
evening of his arrest in challenging the voluntariness of the 
inculpatory statements he made the following morning.  In 
addition, the defendant argues that trial counsel provided 
ineffective assistance because he did not properly request a 
DiGiambattista instruction.  See Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 
442 Mass. 423, 447-448 (2004).  The defendant argues that the 
combination of errors likely influenced the jury's decision, and 
                     
1 The defendant also was convicted of armed burglary, which 
was placed on file at sentencing, and assault and battery by 
means of a dangerous weapon on the victim's girlfriend, who was 
shot and injured during the same attack. 
3 
 
 
that, accordingly, a new trial is required.  He also seeks 
relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 
 
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the defendant's 
convictions and the denial of his motion for a new trial, and we 
decline to grant relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. 
 
1.  Background.2  a.  The shooting.  At approximately 
4:30 A.M. on May 22, 2009, intruders broke into the victim's 
house while the victim and his girlfriend, Tori,3 were asleep.  
Tori awoke to find the victim sitting up in bed and two men 
standing at the edge of the bed, pointing guns at her and the 
victim.  The men wore sunglasses and hats that obscured their 
faces.  Although Tori did not recognize either man, she thought 
that one of them might have been a man she knew as "PS," to whom 
the victim twice had sold marijuana.  Tori believed the other 
man was approximately five feet, six inches tall, roughly the 
same height as the defendant. 
 
Tori screamed, "Please, don't shoot, don't shoot."  The 
victim could not see what was happening, as he was blind, and 
                     
2 The facts in this and the following sections are derived 
from a combination of (1) trial testimony; (2) the trial judge's 
voir dire of the defendant's girlfriend, before the jury were 
sworn, in relation to motions to exclude her testimony; (3) an 
evidentiary hearing held in conjunction with the defendant's 
motion for a new trial; and (4) undisputed documents in the 
record. 
 
3 A pseudonym. 
4 
 
 
began waving his hands.  A gun went off, and the victim fell on 
top of Tori.  The men left.  Tori testified that she saw the two 
men for a total of approximately five minutes. 
 
A projectile from a .380 semiautomatic weapon had entered 
the victim's head on the left side and fragmented in at least 
two different directions.  The victim was transported to a 
hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 11:25 P.M.  The cause 
of death was a single gunshot wound to the head.  A portion of 
the bullet passed through the victim's head and into Tori's 
chin, breaking her jaw.  Two permanent metal plates had to be 
installed in Tori's jaw to hold the jaw together. 
 
b.  Interrogations.  On June 22, 2009, while Lawrence 
police were investigating a separate incident involving a 
burglary, they encountered the defendant and found a Beretta 
firearm on his person.4  The defendant was arrested for 
possession of a firearm without a license, and was transported 
to the Lawrence police station. 
 
That evening, the defendant was interrogated at the 
Lawrence police station in two separate interviews that took 
place approximately one hour apart.  He said nothing inculpatory 
related to this offense during these two interviews, and no 
                     
4 The caliber of the Beretta is not clear from the record. 
5 
 
 
testimony was introduced at trial concerning the defendant's 
statements on the evening of his arrest. 
 
During the first interview, the defendant asked detectives 
if he "could see" his girlfriend, Giana.5  At that point, Giana 
was at the police station in a different room.  Giana, who was 
four months pregnant with twins, had come to the police station 
voluntarily to provide police information that she thought would 
help the defendant, concerning the gun that police had found on 
his person.  In response to the defendant's request, one 
detective said, "[A]ctually she's not going to be able to come 
down.  All right?  But I'll let you call her.  All right?" 
 
According to a police report, while the defendant was in 
the booking room after his first interview, a detective asked a 
fellow officer to tell Giana, who was upstairs, to call the 
officer's cellular telephone.  When Giana called, the officer 
handed the telephone to the defendant, who spoke with Giana.  
Subsequently, the defendant spoke with police for ten minutes, 
and the interview then concluded at 5:41 P.M. 
 
The following day, on June 23, 2009, while the defendant 
was being held in a cell at the Lawrence Division of the 
District Court Department, he requested to speak with a police 
officer whom he recognized.  At approximately 9:30 A.M., the 
                     
5 A pseudonym. 
6 
 
 
defendant was interviewed by two officers.  According to police 
testimony, the defendant waived his Miranda rights, consented to 
the interview being recorded, and waived his right to prompt 
arraignment.  The defendant signed forms associated with each of 
these waivers, as well as his consent to the recording.  The 
period during the issuance of the Miranda warnings and the 
receipt of the defendant's waivers, however, was not recorded. 
 
In this interview, the defendant told police that he had 
participated in the break-in that led to the victim's death.  
The defendant admitted to having broken into the victim's 
apartment, along with individuals he identified as "Limbe," 
"Smokey," "PS," and "Dezi," with the intent to steal money and 
marijuana.  The defendant said that he saw a dog in the 
apartment;6 as he was afraid of dogs, he stayed in the hallway to 
serve as the lookout.  He concluded by saying that someone other 
than he had fired a shot inside the apartment from a .380 
weapon. 
                     
 
6 The victim and his girlfriend owned a dog, which was in 
the bedroom at the time of the incident. 
 
7 
 
 
 
In January 2011, the defendant's first attorney7 moved to 
suppress the defendant's inculpatory statement to police.8  The 
motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing.  In his written 
findings of fact and rulings of law, the motion judge determined 
that the defendant had been questioned by police at the Lawrence 
police headquarters on June 22, 2009, shortly after his arrest, 
for approximately thirty to forty-five minutes.  The judge found 
that, the following day, the defendant initiated contact with 
police, while being held in the cell block area of the District 
Court in Lawrence.  An officer read the defendant Miranda 
warnings before turning on a tape recorder.  The defendant was 
"eager" to speak with police.  The officer described him as 
"clear-headed, and not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or 
mental illness."  The judge determined that the emotion the 
defendant displayed was "appropriate to the situation," and 
                     
 
7 Prior to trial, the defendant's first counsel was replaced 
by a second counsel, who represented the defendant throughout 
the trial. 
 
8 The motion to suppress asserted, among other grounds, that 
the defendant did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily 
waive his right to remain silent or to have an attorney present 
during questioning on June 23, 2009; the defendant did not make 
any statement voluntarily; and any consent was not voluntarily 
obtained.  The motion did not explicitly reference the 
defendant's concern for his girlfriend. 
8 
 
 
concluded that the defendant's "statements were voluntary and 
preceded by adequate Miranda warnings."9 
 
The defendant's trial counsel filed a motion for 
reconsideration, which was denied.  After trial began about one 
week later, counsel moved in limine to exclude the defendant's 
statement of June 23, 2009.  The trial judge deferred to the 
motion judge's ruling and denied the motion. 
 
c.  Trial.  Before the jury were sworn, trial counsel moved 
to exclude testimony by the defendant's girlfriend, Giana, with 
respect to statements she made at the Lawrence police station on 
June 22, 2009.  The Commonwealth had intended to call Giana as a 
corroborating witness, and possibly as a witness to show intent 
for the underlying felony.  Defense counsel explained that Giana 
sought to claim a privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution, because information that she gave 
police that inculpated the defendant purportedly was false.  
Counsel also moved to exclude Giana's statements on the ground 
of asserted police coercion. 
 
The judge conducted a voir dire of Giana.  Giana said that, 
while she was being questioned, a police officer threatened her 
                     
9 The judge observed, "The failure to record the beginning 
of questioning is an issue for the trial judge, and does not 
provoke any concerns by this court about the voluntariness of 
the statements or the adequacy of the Miranda warnings, given 
[the defendant's] obvious desire to speak to police as shown by 
the audio recording." 
9 
 
 
by telling her that if she did not inculpate the defendant, she 
would go to prison and give birth there, and that she would 
never see her twins again.  Giana's son, who had come to the 
police station separately, was brought into a room where he met 
briefly with his mother, who was crying. 
 
The judge determined that "the police may have played upon 
[Giana's] emotions -- to a certain extent -- but I do not find 
that all of [Giana's] testimony is credible."  The judge 
explained that Giana had provided a "demonstratively false" 
statement that she had been given Miranda warnings only as she 
was walking out the door.  The judge also noted that the police 
report describing Giana's interview "doesn't even go into a fair 
amount of what she claims was asked her at the police station."  
The judge denied the motion to exclude Giana's statements.  He 
observed that, "plainly, the defense is entitled to bring these 
matters up to the jury," and left "it to the Commonwealth as to 
whether they want to open up this can of worms before the 
jury."10  Neither the Commonwealth nor the defense ultimately 
                     
10 Overall, the judge did "not find that the Lawrence 
[p]olice had been sufficiently shown to have so invaded 
[Giana's] personal security or in a way that would likely 
produce false testimony."  The judge's findings on this point, 
however, are not entirely clear.  The previous day, the judge 
had ruled that if Giana testified at trial that she had relayed 
false statements to the police, she would have no need to invoke 
the Fifth Amendment because "her testimony . . . would indicate 
that she did not willfully provide the false information, if 
10 
 
 
called Giana to testify at trial.  As a result, any information 
inculpatory to the defendant that Giana might have provided to 
police was not presented to the jury. 
 
The defendant's statements from the morning of June 23, 
2009, were the heart of the Commonwealth's case.  In addition, 
the Commonwealth presented testimony of an inmate, Alvin Rivera, 
who testified against the defendant pursuant to a cooperation 
agreement.  Rivera's testimony suggested that the defendant 
actually shot the victim, rather than serving as lookout. 
 
Rivera testified that, while detained at the Middleton 
house of correction in the summer of 2009, the defendant told 
him that the defendant and others, known as "Smokey," "Limbe," 
and "PS," went to the victim's house on the night of the 
shooting in search of marijuana and money.  Rivera testified 
that Smokey handed the defendant a .380 weapon and PS a Beretta.  
According to Rivera, the defendant told him that Smokey stood in 
the hallway as lookout while the defendant and PS went into the 
apartment and made their way to the bedroom where the victim and 
Tori were sleeping.  Rivera testified that, when the defendant 
noticed the victim moving, the defendant got "nervous" and fired 
a single shot before running from the apartment.  The defendant 
told Rivera that he had sold the .380 but not the Beretta.  The 
                     
indeed, it was false.  If it is false, it was done due to 
intimidation, coercion, not willful activity on her part." 
11 
 
 
defendant said that if anyone questioned him about the shooting, 
he would say that he had been the person who stood outside as a 
lookout.  The defendant told Rivera that the defendant and three 
other individuals previously had broken into the victim's 
apartment, and had stolen marijuana. 
 
The defendant was convicted of all charges.  Because the 
felony-murder conviction was predicated on the burglary charge, 
that charge was placed on file.  The defendant's timely appeal 
was entered in this court in January 2014. 
 
d.  Motion for new trial.  Approximately ten months later, 
the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and his appeal in 
this court was stayed.  In his motion, the defendant argued that 
he had received ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of 
both of his attorneys' failure adequately to investigate Giana's 
purported role in, and effect on, the police interrogation and 
the defendant's statements to police, as well as both attorneys' 
failure to mention the defendant's concern for Giana in 
challenging the voluntariness of the defendant's waivers of his 
Miranda rights and subsequent statements to police.  The 
defendant also argued that his counsel had been ineffective 
because counsel did not request a DiGiambattista instruction on 
the ground that the beginning of the defendant's June 23, 2009 
interrogation had not been recorded, including the portion where 
12 
 
 
the defendant assertedly was given Miranda warnings and waived 
his Miranda rights.11  See DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. at 447. 
 
The defendant argued that, during his interrogation on the 
night of his arrest, police officers orchestrated a "cell[ular] 
[tele]phone ruse" in which they instructed Giana to call him 
using a detective's cellular telephone.  The defendant asserted 
that he was "surprised" to hear Giana on the telephone.  He said 
that, during this call, Giana told him about police threats to 
take away her children and charge her with murder.  Because of 
this call, the defendant maintained, he told the officers 
whatever he thought they wanted to hear. 
 
The trial judge conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing 
on the motion for a new trial.  Witnesses included the 
defendant's two prior attorneys; five police officers; the 
defendant; his girlfriend, Giana; and one of her sons. 
 
Ultimately, the judge denied the motion.  The judge found 
that numerous "facts alleged by the defendant never occurred."  
Specifically, the judge did "not credit, in the slightest, the 
defendant's assertion that the Lawrence police created a 'cell 
                     
11 The defendant argued, additionally, that trial counsel 
was ineffective because he failed adequately to investigate 
whether the defendant knowingly waived his right to prompt 
arraignment before his interview the morning after his arrest; 
to seek suppression of an identification made using a 
photographic array; and to object to that witness's in-court 
identification of the defendant on the basis of the prior 
identification. 
13 
 
 
phone ruse'" on June 22, 2009.  The judge found that "[w]hile 
there is no doubt that the defendant spoke briefly with [Giana] 
before he made his June 23rd statement to the police, that phone 
call conversation was brief and did not contain the sort of 
detailed description of police threats or coercion that the 
defendant now claims."  Accordingly, the judge concluded that 
"there was no basis to argue the phone call as one of the 
grounds for lack of voluntariness," and "[t]hus . . . no 
ineffective assistance of counsel."  The judge also determined 
that absence of a request for a DiGiambattista instruction based 
on the nonrecording of initial warnings and waivers "might well 
be considered an oversight," but that such oversight "did not 
deprive the defendant of a substantial basis for a defense." 
 
2.  Discussion.  a.  Standard of review.  "Where, as here, 
an appeal from the denial of a defendant's motion for a new 
trial has been consolidated with a direct appeal from a 
conviction of murder in the first degree, we review both under 
G. L. c. 278, § 33E."  Commonwealth v. Moore, 480 Mass. 799, 805 
(2018).  "[W]e examine the denial of a motion for a new trial to 
determine whether there was error, and, if so, whether the error 
created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice."  
Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 481 Mass. 641, 649 (2019), citing 
Commonwealth v. Vargas, 475 Mass. 338, 355 (2016), and "afford 
particular deference to factual determinations made by a motion 
14 
 
 
judge who was also the trial judge."  Ferreira, supra.  "[W]e 
make our own independent determination on the correctness of the 
judge's 'application of constitutional principles to the facts 
as found.'"  Commonwealth v. Haas, 373 Mass. 545, 550 (1977), 
S.C., 398 Mass. 806 (1986), quoting Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 
387, 403 (1977). 
 
b.  Telephone call and interviews on evening of defendant's 
arrest.  Although both initial and successor counsel had access 
to the recordings of the interviews on June 22, 2009, the 
evening of the defendant's arrest, as well as to information 
concerning the existence of the telephone call that took place 
between the defendant and Giana while the defendant was in the 
booking area, neither attorney relied on the recordings of the 
interviews or the existence of the telephone call in their 
motions to suppress the statements the defendant made the 
following morning.12  Trial counsel did not realize that pretrial 
counsel had given him recordings of the June 22, 2009 
interviews, which had been obtained through discovery; 
accordingly, he did not listen to the recordings.  The 
nonreliance on the call or recordings by each of the defendant's 
                     
12 As appellate counsel acknowledges, the defendant's 
initial and successor counsel received copies of a police 
report, dated June 22, 2009, before trial.  The report explained 
that the call had taken place. 
15 
 
 
trial counsel was not a conscious, strategic, or tactical 
decision. 
 
Before this court, the defendant presses his argument that 
he received ineffective assistance because counsel did not rely 
on the recordings of his statements to police on the night of 
his arrest, or the telephone call between the defendant and his 
girlfriend, in challenging the voluntariness of the defendant's 
statements to police the following day. 
 
In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 
under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, "[w]e focus more broadly on whether 
there was error and, if so, whether any such error 'was likely 
to have influenced the jury's conclusion.'"  Commonwealth v. 
Fulgiam, 477 Mass. 20, 29, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 330 (2017), 
quoting Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678, 682 (1992), S.C., 
469 Mass. 447 (2014).  Where a motion for a new trial is 
premised on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "the 
burden of proving ineffectiveness rests with the defendant" 
(citation omitted).  Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 Mass. 664, 
673 (2015), S.C., 478 Mass. 189 (2017). 
 
A defendant's statements are admissible against him at 
trial only if they were made voluntarily.  See Commonwealth v. 
Magee, 423 Mass. 381, 387 (1996) ("Due process requires a 
separate inquiry into the voluntariness of the statement 
. . .").  To establish voluntariness, the Commonwealth must 
16 
 
 
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that "'in light of the totality 
of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement, 
the will of the defendant was [not] overborne,' but rather that 
the statement was 'the result of a free and voluntary act.'"  
Commonwealth v. Baye, 462 Mass. 246, 256 (2012), quoting 
Commonwealth v. Durand, 457 Mass. 574, 595-596 (2010), S.C., 475 
Mass. 657 (2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 259 (2017).  The 
Commonwealth also must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that 
police interrogation practices "were not 'so manipulative . . . 
that they deprived [the defendant] of his ability to make an 
unconstrained, autonomous decision to confess.'"  Baye, supra, 
quoting United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1030 (3d Cir. 
1993).  "Absent some indication that the defendant was 
particularly vulnerable to suggestion, the focus of our inquiry 
has been on whether incriminating statements were 'the result of 
coercion or intimidation."  Baye, supra, quoting Durand, supra 
at 595. 
 
Clearly, it was poor performance for the defendant's 
initial and successor counsel not to listen to the recordings of 
interrogations of his client by police, which each counsel had 
in his possession as part of mandated discovery.  Our review of 
these recordings, and the judge's findings about the call, 
however, lead us to conclude that they were not likely to have 
made a difference in counsels' efforts to suppress the 
17 
 
 
defendant's confession on the following day.  See Kolenovic, 471 
Mass. at 672-673, quoting Commonwealth v. Walker, 443 Mass. 213, 
224 (2005) ("[A] judge's findings of fact after an evidentiary 
hearing on a motion for a new trial will be accepted if 
supported by the record. . . .  Where, as here, the motion judge 
is also the trial judge, we give 'special deference' to the 
judge's findings of fact . . .").13 
 
First, the trial judge, who conducted the hearing on the 
motion for a new trial, was warranted in finding that the 
telephone call between the defendant and Giana was not the 
product of a police-orchestrated ruse.  Transcripts of the 
defendant's interrogation on the night of his arrest support the 
judge's determination that the defendant could not have been 
"surprised" to find Giana speaking to him on the telephone, as 
the defendant contended.  The transcript of the interview states 
                     
13 Contrary to his suggestion, the defendant is not entitled 
to de novo review of all the evidence to determine if it 
supports his claim that his statement on June 23, 2009, was 
involuntary.  While the defendant is correct that this court may 
review documentary evidence, including transcripts, 
independently, see Commonwealth v. Novo, 442 Mass. 262, 266 
(2004), determinations of witness credibility were central to 
the resolution of the defendant's claims of ineffective 
assistance in his motion for a new trial.  See Commonwealth v. 
Mosher, 455 Mass. 811, 818 (2010), citing Commonwealth v. 
Sparks, 433 Mass. 654, 656 (2001) ("We accept as true the 
subsidiary findings of fact made by the motion judge absent 
clear error, deferring to the credibility findings of the judge, 
who had the opportunity to observe and evaluate the witnesses as 
they testified"). 
18 
 
 
clearly that the defendant requested to see Giana; subsequently, 
a police officer told the defendant that the officer would allow 
them to speak over the telephone.  It was, accordingly, not 
inaccurate for the judge to characterize the call as the result 
of the officers' allowance of the defendant's request to speak 
with Giana. 
 
Second, the judge was not unwarranted in finding that 
neither Giana nor the defendant provided the defendant's initial 
or successor counsel with any indication that Giana had 
communicated police threats to the defendant during their 
telephone call.  This finding was based on the fact that both 
counsel several times had attempted to have suppressed the 
defendant's inculpatory statements, and testimony by both 
counsel, which the judge credited.  The defendant's first 
counsel testified, "If there was something that impacted [the 
defendant's] voluntariness that he had revealed to me, . . . I 
would have hoped I would have included it in the affidavit [as] 
a ground for the suppression."  Successor counsel testified that 
he interviewed Giana in his efforts to obtain suppression of the 
defendant's confession, and that "[i]f [information about police 
threats was] not in [his] motion [to suppress], then it wasn't 
discussed." 
 
Based on this, the judge drew a permissible inference that 
the reason that the defendant did not disclose to counsel any 
19 
 
 
knowledge of alleged police pressure placed on Giana was that 
she did not communicate police threats to the defendant during 
their telephone call.  Because the call itself was not recorded, 
the judge's factual determinations concerning the call rested 
largely on assessments of witness credibility.  The judge found 
portions of the defendant's and Giana's testimony with respect 
to the contents of the call not credible, and explained his 
reasoning.  Cf. Commonwealth v. Rakes, 478 Mass. 22, 36 (2017). 
 
The judge noted that Giana provided "plainly false" 
testimony at the motion hearing, in that she asserted that she 
had spoken about the call "out loud in a court setting just like 
this."  This statement is refuted by the transcript of her prior 
voir dire testimony before the same judge.  In addition, as was 
his prerogative, see Rakes, 478 Mass. at 36, the judge did not 
credit Giana's testimony that she told the defendant's trial 
counsel about the call "the moment [they] spoke."  This 
determination is particularly apt in light of the testimony by 
trial counsel indicating that he had no memory of such 
statements, and that he would have relied on them in support of 
motions to suppress if he had heard such assertions at the time. 
 
The judge also was not required to credit the defendant's 
testimony that his telephone conversation with Giana included 
discussion of specific police threats toward her.  See Rakes, 
478 Mass. at 36.  Like Giana, the defendant provided 
20 
 
 
contradictory information relative to his interactions with the 
police on the evening of his arrest and the following day.  For 
instance, in a written affidavit in support of his motion to 
suppress his June 23, 2009 statement, the defendant attested, 
"Prior to being arrested I had taken some [K]lonopin tablets. 
. . .  I was under the influence of the pills when the police 
interrogated me."  At the hearing on his motion for a new trial, 
the defendant testified that he had not been under the influence 
of drugs during any of his interviews with police, and that the 
affidavit he signed under the penalty of perjury was "not true." 
 
The judge's determination that "[t]he conversation, as was 
true of most phone conversations of a similar sort in the 
booking area, did not last [ten] to [fifteen] minutes as the 
defendant alleges," and instead was "quite a brief conversation" 
is supported by the record.  As the judge noted, Giana testified 
at the hearing that the telephone conversation lasted only "[a] 
few seconds, a few minutes."  The judge observed that the 
defendant gave contradictory estimates concerning the length of 
the call; while the defendant's affidavit in support of his 
motion for a new trial stated that the call lasted ten to 
fifteen minutes, the defendant testified at the hearing that the 
call lasted "six or seven minutes or a little bit -- a little 
bit longer, a little bit."  In addition, the police officer who 
had been in the room during the telephone call testified that 
21 
 
 
the call must have been short, because he would not have allowed 
the defendant to talk on the cellular telephone for ten minutes.  
The judge was warranted in concluding that, "if the defendant 
was unaware of the alleged inappropriate police pressure, it 
could not have affected his voluntariness." 
Undoubtedly, if made to a defendant, "threats concerning a 
person's loved one . . . may impinge on the voluntariness of a 
defendant's confession."  Commonwealth v. Monroe, 472 Mass. 461, 
469 (2015), citing Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534 (1963).  
Police threats directed at an individual other than the 
defendant, however, and which are not communicated to the 
defendant, cannot reasonably be said to constitute coercion of 
the defendant.  Compare Monroe, supra ("Here, . . . detectives 
threatened the defendant with the loss of contact with his child 
by repeatedly and falsely claiming that if he did not tell them 
what happened, the child could be taken away and raised by 
strangers"). 
 
After reviewing the record and the judge's conclusions, we 
are not "left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been 
committed."  Commonwealth v. Tavares, 385 Mass. 140, 156, cert. 
denied, 457 U.S. 1137 (1982), quoting New England Canteen Serv., 
Inc. v. Ashley, 372 Mass. 671, 675 (1977). 
 
The defendant argues, in the alternative, that "[e]ven if 
the call did not include mention of the [alleged] coercion, the 
22 
 
 
circumstances surrounding the call would still have been 
admissible on the question of how 'upset and dismay[ed]' [Giana] 
was during the call, and how 'concern[ed]' [the defendant] was 
as a result."  The defendant contends that he should receive a 
new trial because "the call still would have been a real factor 
in the jury's voluntariness decision, had it been developed at 
trial."  We do not agree. 
 
Factors relevant to assessing voluntariness "include, but 
are not limited to, 'promises or other inducements, conduct of 
the defendant, the defendant's age, education, intelligence and 
emotional stability, experience with and in the criminal justice 
system, physical and mental condition, the initiator of the 
discussion of a deal or leniency (whether the defendant or the 
police), and the details of the interrogation, including the 
recitation of Miranda warnings.'"  Commonwealth v. Selby, 420 
Mass. 656, 663 (1995), quoting Commonwealth v. Mandile, 397 
Mass. 410, 413 (1986). 
 
Based on the totality of the circumstances, there was 
sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that 
the defendant's statement on June 23, 2009, was "the product of 
a 'rational intellect' and a 'free will,' and not induced by 
physical or psychological coercion," Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, 
433 Mass. 549, 554 (2001), even given the defendant's knowledge 
of Giana's "upset and dismay" on June 22, 2009. 
23 
 
 
 
At no time on June 22 or 23, 2009, did the officers 
interrogating the defendant improperly provide "an assurance, 
express or implied, that [a confession would] aid the defense or 
result in a lesser sentence."  See Commonwealth v. Meehan, 377 
Mass. 552, 564 (1979).  Indeed, at the defendant's first 
interview, an officer made clear that "it's going to be up to 
the DA.  Whatever happens.  OK?  We . . . won't make any 
promises at all."14  During the interview on the following day, 
initiated by the defendant, an officer stopped to reread the 
defendant the Miranda warnings; the defendant's waiver of those 
rights was recorded.15  The emotion the defendant displayed 
                     
14 An interrogating officer did tell the defendant, in 
response to the defendant's concerns for the safety of his 
family, that "if you do cooperate with us and continue to 
cooperate with us I'm going to talk to Section 8. . . .  
[T]hat's something I can do."  "[F]alse 'promises . . . as might 
excite hopes in the mind of [an interviewee] that he should be 
materially benefitted by making disclosures' can undermine a 
defendant's ability to make an autonomous decision to confess, 
and are therefore properly regarded as coercive."  Commonwealth 
v. Baye, 462 Mass. 246, 257-258 (2012), quoting Commonwealth v. 
Taylor, 5 Cush. 605, 610 (1850).  Here, however, the officer's 
statement was phrased as explaining that he would make an 
inquiry, and did not promise a result.  Furthermore, the 
statement was made in response to security concerns raised by 
the defendant, regarding subjects apart from prospective 
punishment or leniency.  See Commonwealth v. Mandile, 397 Mass. 
410, 413 (1986).  In addition, the officer explicitly repeated 
that he could not make promises of any kind to the defendant. 
 
15 The interrogating officer said, "Let's stop.  We read 
your Miranda."  After beginning to recite the Miranda rights 
again, the officer asked, "Remember I read you this before?  I 
want to go over it again to make sure you understand it because 
it's important. . . .  You heard this before, right?  Yes, no?"  
24 
 
 
during the June 23, 2009 interrogation was, according to the 
judge who ruled on the defendant's motion to suppress, 
"appropriate to the situation; [the defendant] confessed to 
involvement in a killing."  The judge found that the defendant 
was "not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or mental 
illness."  This finding is supported implicitly by the absence 
of any indication in the record that the defendant had been 
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Moreover, the 
defendant now concedes that he was not under the influence of 
drugs during any of the interrogations. 
 
c.  DiGiambattista instruction.  The defendant also argues 
that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because he 
did not rely on the telephone call between the defendant and 
Giana in seeking a DiGiambattista instruction, and because 
counsel did not request the instruction based on the incomplete 
recording of the defendant's June 23, 2009 interrogation.16  As 
                     
The defendant replied, "Yes."  The officer then finished the 
recitation. 
 
16 Trial counsel requested a DiGiambattista instruction on 
the ground that a police officer failed to record interviews of 
the defendant prior to his interrogation on June 23, 2009.  See 
Commonwealth v. DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 423, 447-448 (2004).  
This assertion was inaccurate.  Indeed, at the time he sought 
the instruction, trial counsel was in possession of the 
recordings, but was unaware of that fact.  In any event, the 
judge denied the defendant's request for a DiGiambattista 
instruction on the ground that it was not necessary to give such 
an instruction with respect to "other [unrecorded] discussions 
at other times [by police officers] . . . with the defendant," 
25 
 
 
discussed, the interrogations of the defendant on the evening of 
his arrest and the following day were recorded.  The telephone 
call with Giana on the night of the defendant's arrest was not 
recorded.  The initial discussion on June 23, 2009, between the 
defendant and the interrogating officer, regarding Miranda 
rights, the right to prompt arraignment, and consent to 
electronic recording, was not recorded. 
 
In DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. at 447, we held that "when the 
prosecution introduces evidence of a defendant's confession or 
statement that is the product of a custodial interrogation or an 
interrogation conducted at a place of detention . . . and there 
is not at least an audiotape recording of the complete 
interrogation, the defendant is entitled (on request) to a jury 
instruction."  This instruction advises the jury "that the 
State's highest court has expressed a preference that such 
interrogations be recorded whenever practicable, and caution[s] 
the jury that, because of the absence of any recording of the 
interrogation in the case before them, they should weigh 
evidence of the defendant's alleged statement with great caution 
and care."  Id. at 447-448.  Further, where, as here, 
"voluntariness is a live issue and the humane practice 
instruction is given, the jury should also be advised that the 
                     
where the Commonwealth was not seeking to introduce evidence 
from those conversations. 
26 
 
 
absence of a recording permits (but does not compel) them to 
conclude that the Commonwealth has failed to prove voluntariness 
beyond a reasonable doubt."  Id. at 448.17 
 
The defendant would not have been entitled to a 
DiGiambattista instruction on the basis of any putative 
incomplete recordings of the June 22, 2009 interrogations, 
because those interrogations were distinct from the June 23, 
2009 interrogation; at trial, the Commonwealth relied only on 
statements that the defendant made on June 23, 2009.18  This 
defendant's circumstances differ from those of Commonwealth v. 
Woodbine, 461 Mass. 720, 726, 739-740 (2012), in which we 
explained that a defendant should have received a DiGiambattista 
instruction when an interrogating officer capitalized on a 
strategic decision to record only one part of a "two-stage 
interrogation," and the recorded portion was suppressed.  We 
described the interrogation as a "two-stage interrogation" 
because the interrogating officer began questioning a defendant 
alone, then summoned another detective into the room after the 
defendant began talking, and only recorded statements the 
defendant provided to both officers.  Id. at 725-726, 739-740.  
                     
17 The judge gave a humane practice instruction. 
 
18 The fact that, on June 22, 2009, the officers asked the 
defendant about the shooting on May 22 does not alter our 
analysis. 
27 
 
 
By contrast, here the defendant's third interview occurred only 
because he requested to speak with police, after police 
indisputably had ceased questioning him more than fifteen hours 
earlier, the day before.19 
 
Moreover, the fact that the defendant's telephone call with 
Giana was unrecorded would not have entitled him to a 
DiGiambattista instruction, because the call did not comprise 
part of the interrogation.  Police would not reasonably have 
known, and the defendant could not reasonably have expected, 
that facilitating the call in response to the defendant's 
request would be reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating 
response from the defendant.  See Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 
U.S. 291, 301-302 (1980); Commonwealth v. Torres, 424 Mass. 792, 
798 (1997).  See also Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520, 527 (1987) 
(tape recorded conversation between defendant and his wife was 
not "functional equivalent" of interrogation, where detective 
asked no questions about crime or conduct during call, and 
evidence did not suggest call was psychological ploy). 
                     
19 We are satisfied that interrogation of the defendant 
ceased until "the accused himself initiate[d] further 
communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police."  
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-485 (1981).  We conclude 
that the defendant's subsequent waiver of his Miranda rights was 
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, see discussion supra.  
Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039, 1046 (1983), quoting Edwards, 
supra at 486 n. 9.  See Commonwealth v. Thomas, 469 Mass. 531, 
549-550 (2014).  Contrast Commonwealth v. Hoyt, 461 Mass. 143, 
153 (2011). 
28 
 
 
 
Nonetheless, it was error for defense counsel not to 
request a DiGiambattista instruction on the basis of an 
incomplete recording of the defendant's interrogation on 
June 23, 2009.  As we explained in DiGiambattista, 442 Mass. 
at 448, an "instruction is appropriate for any custodial 
interrogation, or interrogation conducted in a place of 
detention, without regard to the alleged reasons for not 
recording that interrogation."  Accordingly, counsel erred in 
not requesting a DiGiambattista instruction as a result of the 
nonrecording of the defendant's initial acknowledgment and 
waiver of his rights.  The absence of a DiGiambattista 
instruction in this case, however, was not likely to have 
influenced the jury's conclusion, see Wright, 411 Mass. at 682, 
and did not result in a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage 
of justice. 
 
The fact that a brief, introductory portion of the 
defendant's interrogation on June 23, 2009, was not recorded did 
not prejudice the defendant.  A very short period of time passed 
between the start of discussions about the defendant's rights 
and his waiver of them, and the initiation of the recording.  
"The defendant does not contest the interviewing State police 
[officer's] testimony as to the introductory nature of the first 
[few] minutes of the interview, and nothing in the record 
suggests that any substantive exchange took place during that 
29 
 
 
time."  Commonwealth v. Vacher, 469 Mass. 425, 444 (2014).20  
Significantly, the recording does capture a police officer 
rereading the defendant his Miranda rights, after which the 
defendant confirmed that he had heard the reading of those 
rights before, and continued to talk.  In addition, the 
defendant's signed waiver and consent forms were introduced in 
evidence, and nearly all the interrogation was recorded and 
entered as an exhibit.  The jury "accordingly were well situated 
to determine the voluntariness of the defendant's statements" 
made on that date.  Vacher, 469 Mass. at 444.  The fact that the 
defendant initiated the June 23, 2009 interrogation, coupled 
with the interrogating officer's testimony that the reading of 
the defendant's rights was unrecorded only because that was 
standard practice at the time,21 present no indicia of 
                     
20 Before this court, the defendant argues that on June 22, 
2009, "marked differences in [the defendant's] affect and 
demeanor" before and after his call with Giana illustrate that a 
"substantive exchange" occurred during an unrecorded portion of 
the interrogation.  As stated, we do not consider the unrecorded 
telephone call with Giana to comprise part of the interrogation. 
 
21 The officer explained that it was standard practice at 
the time to read an individual his or her rights "off the 
record," get permission to record, and then review on record 
that the officer had read the individual his or her rights and 
the individual had agreed to waive them. 
 
30 
 
 
intimidation or coercion in relation to the lack of recording.  
See Baye, 462 Mass. at 256, quoting Durand, 457 Mass. at 595.22 
 
d.  Relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  The defendant 
argues that we should order a new trial or reduce the verdict of 
murder in the first degree because his role in the underlying 
felony was limited.  We do not agree.  This case is not one 
where the defendant's conviction "appear[s] out of proportion to 
[the] defendant's culpability."  Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 
Mass. 805, 824 (2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 54 (2018), 
quoting Commonwealth v. Rolon, 438 Mass. 808, 824 (2003).  The 
jury would have been warranted in finding that the defendant had 
been involved in more than the "remote outer fringes" of the 
crime that led to the victim's death.  The defendant told police 
that he had acted as the lookout -- which entails standing guard 
at the scene.  See Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449, 468 
(2009) ("knowing[] participat[ion] in the commission of the 
crime charged, alone or with others, with the intent required 
for that offense").  Compare Brown, supra (verdict reduced where 
defendant supplied materials used by others to commit crime 
while defendant stayed home). 
 
The defendant also argues that we should reduce the murder 
verdict because other individuals involved in the crime were not 
                     
22 An unrelated confession, to Rivera, was also before the 
jury, through Rivera's testimony. 
31 
 
 
charged.  It is irrelevant to the defendant's culpability, 
however, whether other actors were prosecuted for their own 
involvement in the crime.  See Zanetti, 454 Mass. at 468. 
 
3.  Conclusion.  We have reviewed the record in its 
entirety, in accordance with our duty under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, 
and discern no reason to order a new trial or to reduce the 
verdict of murder in the first degree.  The defendant's 
convictions and the order denying his motion for a new trial are 
affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.