Title: Commonwealth v. Torres

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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-10849 
 
COMMONWEALTH  vs.  JOSE TORRES. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     April 11, 2014. - August 18, 2014. 
 
Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ.1 
 
 
Homicide.  Practice, Criminal, Capital case, New trial, 
Assistance of counsel, Argument by counsel, Instructions to 
jury.  Evidence, Opinion, Expert opinion.  Witness, Expert. 
 
 
 
Indictment found and returned in the Superior Court 
Department on June 26, 2008. 
 
 
The case was tried before Elizabeth M. Fahey, J., and a 
motion for a new trial, filed on October 19, 2011, was 
considered by her. 
 
 
 
Emanuel Howard for the defendant. 
 
Donna Jalbert Patalano, Assistant District Attorney (David 
A. Deakin, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the 
Commonwealth. 
 
 
 
SPINA, J.  The defendant was convicted of murder in the 
first degree on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme 
atrocity or cruelty.  He filed a motion for a new trial alleging 
ineffective assistance of counsel, and he requested an 
                     
 
1 Chief Justice Ireland participated in the deliberation on 
this case prior to his retirement. 
2 
 
evidentiary hearing.  The trial judge denied the motion without 
a hearing.  Her indorsement in the margin said, "for the reasons 
stated in [the Commonwealth's] opposition."  On appeal the 
defendant alleges error in the denial of his motion for a new 
trial, the judge's failure to make findings, and the judge's 
failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion.  We affirm 
the conviction and the denial of the defendant's motion for a 
new trial.  We decline to exercise our power under G. L. c. 278, 
§ 33E. 
 
1.  Background.  The defendant moved into his girl friend's 
third-floor apartment in the Dorchester section of Boston in the 
middle of February, 2008.  His girl friend, the victim, had four 
children, the oldest of whom was six years old.  On March 8, 
2008, Kristina Ortiz visited the victim at her apartment.  The 
defendant and the victim's four children were there.  As Ortiz 
was leaving, the defendant made a disparaging remark about the 
victim's children. 
 
That evening the victim sent her six year old son down to 
the first-floor apartment of a neighbor three times to ask the 
neighbor to come up to his mother's apartment.  Each time the 
neighbor said she would be right up, but became distracted by 
her own children and failed to appear.  At 9 P.M. the defendant 
went down to the first-floor apartment and told the neighbor 
that his "wife was waiting" for her.  The neighbor went up to 
3 
 
the victim's apartment at around 9:30 P.M.  The victim asked the 
neighbor if the neighbor knew where she could get some cocaine.  
The neighbor was surprised because she knew the victim was 
trying to stop using cocaine.  The neighbor said she did not 
know, and left after a brief conversation. 
 
Sometime between 2 and 3 A.M. on March 9 the first-floor 
neighbor heard "an unusual thud" from an apartment above hers.  
The victim's apartment was two floors directly above her 
apartment, but the neighbor could not tell if the noise had come 
from the victim's apartment.  Shortly thereafter she heard 
footsteps coming down the stairs.  She went back to bed. 
 
At about 11:15 A.M. on March 9 the victim's two eldest 
children appeared at the first-floor neighbor's apartment.  The 
oldest child said, "My mommy and daddy had a fight and he killed 
her.  She's dead."  He added that the defendant had left.  The 
next oldest, who was five years old at the time of the incident, 
testified at trial to the physical beating he saw the defendant 
inflict on his mother.  He saw the defendant push her under a 
leg of the kitchen table, then sit on the table.  The defendant 
then locked the children in their bedroom.2  The neighbor went 
upstairs and found the victim lying lifeless on the kitchen 
floor in a pool of blood.  An electrical cord was pulled tight 
around her neck.  The kitchen was in a state of disarray:  
                     
 
2 The record does not reflect how the children left their 
bedroom. 
4 
 
furniture was overturned, the kitchen table was broken, and 
laundry was strewn about the room.  The neighbor gathered the 
children, brought them to her apartment, and telephoned the 
police. 
 
In the meantime, at about 10 A.M. on March 9, the defendant 
had gone to the home of Doris Serrano, where the defendant's 
father lived in the basement.  He told his father that the 
victim had "kicked [him] out."  His father asked about scratches 
on the defendant's face.  The defendant explained that the 
victim had scratched him.  The defendant left his duffle bag and 
knapsack in his father's room and went out to have a beer.  
Later that afternoon the defendant visited his cousin Iliana 
Pagan (Serrano's daughter), who was a close friend of the 
victim.  Pagan's fiancé was present.  The defendant explained 
that the victim had scratched his face during an argument over 
drugs.  During the defendant's visit Pagan received a telephone 
call in which she learned that the victim had been found dead in 
her home.  Pagan burst into tears.  When her fiancé asked what 
was wrong, she broke the news in a voice loud enough for the 
defendant to hear.  The defendant said nothing.  He bowed his 
head and put his face in his hands. 
 
Police tried to locate the defendant.  They went to 
Serrano's apartment and asked if Serrano would get in touch with 
him.  Serrano reached the defendant by cellular telephone and 
5 
 
told him that his father was looking for him.  The defendant 
returned to Serrano's apartment within minutes.  The police 
asked him to accompany them to Boston police headquarters for 
questioning.  He agreed. 
 
The defendant made a statement that was audiorecorded by 
police.  He told police that he loved the victim and was 
supposed to marry her.  He described what had happened the night 
of March 8, saying that the victim went "bi-polar" on him.  He 
tried to hug her, but she scratched his face.  She threatened to 
kill herself and call the police if he did not leave.  He 
gathered all his belongings into a duffle bag (which was 
"heavy") and a backpack, and then left.  He took a bus to his 
father's home, arriving at about 1 A.M.  He denied striking the 
victim or killing her.  He also said he loved her children.  The 
defendant said he could not have hit the victim with the kitchen 
table because he has arthritis and scoliosis, and could not lift 
heavy objects. 
 
The pathologist who performed the autopsy determined that 
death was caused by a combination of ligature strangulation 
(probably by the electrical extension cord found around the 
victim's neck) and a sharp incision to the front of the victim's 
neck that severed her right carotid artery and jugular vein, and 
completely divided her trachea (windpipe).  The strangulation 
occurred before the incision wound.  The victim had suffered 
6 
 
blunt trauma to her head.  She also had been exposed to a 
caustic chemical, such as bleach, after death.  The pathologist 
could not determine if the incision wound was caused by drawing 
a sharp blade from right to left or from left to right. 
 
Police recovered the duffle bag and backpack the defendant 
had left in his father's room.  Inside the duffle bag was a 
"CharlieCard," a fare card used for Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority (MBTA) services, that had been used at 
11:33 P.M. on March 8 on an MBTA bus that passed within a few 
blocks of the victim's apartment.  Also inside the duffle bag 
was a receipt from a 7-Eleven store that evidenced a cash 
purchase at 12:02 A.M. on March 9, 2008.  The backpack contained 
personal items, including a notebook, a pair of sandals, and 
some clothing. 
 
The notebook had served as a journal.  The defendant had 
made an entry on January 11, 2008, in which he wrote: 
 
"Today was a real good day.  But out of nowhere I got 
filled with rage and a lot of anger for no apparent reason.  
I'm sick and tired of my mental illness.  I can't control 
my actions.  I'm afraid that one day I'm going to blow-up 
on someone.  I'm on my meds like I'm supposed to be. . . . 
It's like all the people who done me wrong are targets.  
The way I see it it is like one thing in my mind, 
Liquidation time.  Vaporize all the wrong doer's to me and 
my life." 
 
 
The tread on the defendant's left sandal was similar in 
size and pattern to a footwear impression made in blood within a 
few feet of the victim's body.  The impression left at the crime 
7 
 
scene lacked sufficient detail to support a definitive 
comparison. 
 
The victim was found to be a potential source of 
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence recovered from reddish-
brown stains on the heel of the defendant's right sandal, three 
areas on the defendant's duffle bag, and the handle and blade of 
a knife found in the victim's kitchen sink, as well as a brown 
stain on the defendant's shirt, where 1 in 39 quintillion 
Caucasians, 1 in 1.7 sextillion African Americans, and 1 in 260 
quadrillion Southeastern Hispanics would have the same genetic 
profile.  The victim was also determined to be a possible source 
of DNA recovered from reddish-brown stains containing a mixture 
of DNA from two individuals on the defendant's denim pants, 
where 1 in 44 trillion Caucasians, 1 in 2.5 quadrillion African 
Americans, and 1 in 1.8 trillion Southeastern Hispanics would 
have the same genetic profile.  Both the victim and the 
defendant were determined to be potential contributors to a 
mixture of DNA from three or more individuals found on the upper 
half of the sole of the defendant's right sandal. 
 
The defense theory was that the defendant did not kill the 
victim.  He had no motive to kill the victim, whom he loved, and 
he left her apartment after they argued.  He contended there was 
not enough time between the visit by the first-floor neighbor at 
9:30 P.M. and the CharlieCard activity at 11:33 P.M. for him to 
8 
 
kill the victim, pack his belongings, and attempt to cover his 
tracks at the scene with bleach or other caustic substance. 
 
2.  Standard of review.  The defendant asserted multiple 
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion for a 
new trial.  Because he has been convicted of murder in the first 
degree and his appeal from the denial of his motion for a new 
trial has been consolidated with his direct appeal, we consider 
his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel to determine if 
any error has created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage 
of justice, as required by G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  This standard 
of review is more favorable to the defendant than the 
constitutional standard for determining ineffective assistance 
of counsel.  See Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. 678, 682 
(1992).  Under this more favorable standard, we consider whether 
there was error by trial counsel, regardless whether trial 
counsel's performance fell measurably below that of an ordinary 
fallible lawyer, and, if there was, whether the error was likely 
to have influenced the jury's verdict.  Id.  However, a 
strategic decision by an attorney constitutes error only if it 
was manifestly unreasonable when made.  See Commonwealth v. 
Smith, 456 Mass. 476, 482 (2010). 
 
A judge is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a 
motion for a new trial only if a substantial issue is raised by 
the motion or affidavits.  See Commonwealth v. Wallis, 440 Mass. 
9 
 
589, 596 (2003); Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (c) (3), as appearing in 
435 Mass. 1501 (2001).  In that regard a judge considers the 
seriousness of the issues raised and the adequacy of the 
defendant's showing on those issues.  See Commonwealth v. 
DeVincent, 421 Mass. 64, 67 (1995).  A judge is not required to 
credit assertions in affidavits submitted in support of a motion 
for a new trial, and may evaluate them in light of factors 
pertinent to credibility, including bias, self-interest, and 
delay.  See Commonwealth v. Grant, 426 Mass. 667, 673 (1998).  A 
judge may rely on his or her knowledge of the trial and 
evaluation of the witnesses and evidence at the trial when 
reaching a decision on a motion for a new trial, including 
whether to decide the motion without an evidentiary hearing.  
See Commonwealth v. DeVincent, supra at 69. 
 
The judge must make findings of fact necessary to resolve 
the defendant's allegations of error of law in a motion for a 
new trial.  See Mass. R. Crim. P. 30 (b), as appearing in 435 
Mass. 1501 (2001).  A judge's failure to make findings required 
by rule 30 (b) is "not fatal . . . where the ultimate conclusion 
is clearly evident from the record," Commonwealth v. Lanoue, 392 
Mass. 583, 586 n.2 (1984), or where we are satisfied that "on 
review of the whole case manifest injustice would [not] result."  
Commonwealth v. Preston, 393 Mass. 318, 322 n.4 (1984).  See 
Commonwealth v. Dunnington, 390 Mass. 472, 478 (1983). 
10 
 
 
3.  Discussion.  We turn to the defendant's claims of 
ineffective assistance of counsel. 
 
a.  The defendant faults trial counsel for failing to 
exploit the time difference between the defendant's use of his 
CharlieCard at 11:33 P.M. on March 8 and the "unusual thud" 
heard by the first-floor neighbor on March 9 between 2 and 3 
A.M. followed by the sound of footsteps she heard shortly 
thereafter going down the stairs, both of which the Commonwealth 
relied on to link the defendant to the killing.  He also faults 
counsel for failing to request an alibi defense and pursue a 
third-party culprit defense (which he claims would explain the 
thud and footsteps heard by the first-floor neighbor). 
 
In his closing argument trial counsel did in fact highlight 
inconsistencies in the timeline.  However, the time of death had 
not been established by the autopsy.  The pathologist could only 
opine that the victim had been dead more than twenty-four hours 
by the time of the autopsy on March 11, 2008.  Because it was 
not clear precisely when death occurred, an alibi defense would 
not likely have succeeded where the defendant did not have an 
alibi for the time between 9:30 and 11:33 P.M. on March 8, when 
the jury could have determined that the killing occurred. 
 
Had trial counsel pursued a third-party culprit defense, 
about which the defendant offers no details, the Commonwealth 
was ready to offer evidence of the defendant's jailhouse 
11 
 
confession to another inmate that included many details not 
publicly known, together with a detailed diagram of the crime 
scene.  After trial counsel announced that the defendant would 
not testify, the prosecutor decided not to call as a witness at 
trial the inmate to whom the defendant had confessed.  Counsel's 
decision to make do with what he had rather than pursue a highly 
risky strategy not likely to produce favorable results (but 
likely instead to yield highly damaging admissions from the 
defendant) was a reasonable tactical decision we infer from the 
record.  "Neither ineffectiveness nor a likelihood of a 
miscarriage of justice arise from counsel making the best he can 
out of the circumstances of the crime."  Commonwealth v. Hung 
Tan Vo, 427 Mass. 464, 471 (1998). 
 
This theory of ineffectiveness was not supported by any 
affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant.3  We are satisfied 
that no substantial question was presented that required an 
evidentiary hearing, and that on review of the whole case there 
was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice in the 
absence of written findings by the judge.  The existence of a 
reasonable tactical decision by trial counsel in proceeding as 
he did is clearly evident from the record. 
                     
 
3 Trial counsel submitted an affidavit in response to 
specific questions posed by appellate counsel concerning each 
issue raised in the motion for a new trial (and on appeal).  
Trial counsel's response was:  "As to these topics, I cannot 
remember whether I specifically considered these issues, or not; 
however, I remember leaving 'no stone unturned' in this case." 
12 
 
 
b.  The defendant contends that trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to object to testimony by Serrano to the 
effect that she lied to the defendant by telling him his father 
was looking for him.  She said she knew that if she had said the 
police were looking for him he would not come.  The defendant 
argues that this was impermissible comment on his credibility.  
See Commonwealth v. Triplett, 398 Mass. 561, 567 (1986). 
 
Although probably objectionable, Serrano's remark did not 
create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.  
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the prosecutor did not 
refer to, or even allude to, Serrano's statement in his closing 
argument.  Trial counsel elicited from Serrano on cross-
examination that she had been with the victim and the defendant 
for about fifteen minutes on March 6, two days before the 
victim's death, and that they appeared to be getting along.  
Serrano detected no tension between them at the time.  Moreover, 
the defendant went with police voluntarily to give a statement, 
offering no resistance.  We are satisfied that Serrano's remark 
was fleeting and isolated.  It was hardly the kind of 
prejudicial comment that permeates the testimony of a key 
Commonwealth witness on a critical issue in the case such that a 
new trial is required.  Compare Commonwealth v. Triplett, supra.  
Counsel was not ineffective. 
13 
 
 
c.  The defendant asserts that trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to recognize that the incision on the 
victim's neck was caused by a left-handed person, for failing to 
recognize from available information that the defendant was 
right-handed, and for failing to consult with an appropriate 
expert to show that the defendant could not have caused the 
incision wound.  This is the only claim of ineffective 
assistance of counsel supported by affidavit. 
 
The defendant presented the affidavit of a physician who is 
a recognized expert on knife wounds and has testified as an 
expert both for the Commonwealth and for defendants.  Based on 
the autopsy report and autopsy photographs, it was the 
physician's opinion that "[t]he pattern of this incision [wound 
to the neck] is most consistent with an assailant delivering the 
incision using his left hand while positioned behind the 
victim."  The defendant filed an affidavit stating that he is 
and always has been right-handed.  Affidavits from his mother 
and his older sister similarly attested to his right-handedness.  
The defendant also submitted medical records indicating two 
injuries purportedly consonant with right-handedness. 
 
The defendant's assertions that trial counsel failed to 
recognize critical details is purely speculative.  In addition, 
even if this defense had been presented to the jury, it likely 
would not have influenced the jury's conclusion.  See 
14 
 
Commonwealth v. Wright, 411 Mass. at 682.  The defendant told 
the detectives who interviewed him, "I cannot lift heavy objects 
. . . I cannot really grasp, like grasp, certain things . . . .  
Any time I try to grasp something hard, all I feel is a pain and 
it goes straight numb cuz you can feel the bone right here.  I 
don't do much lifting.  I can't exercise."  Although the 
defendant may be right-handed, he told police he is unable to 
use his major hand for rigorous projects.  Moreover, he has not 
claimed that he could not grasp something, such as a knife, with 
his left hand and use it to cut the victim's throat.  Nor has he 
claimed that he would not have been able to strangle the victim 
with an electrical cord.  The defendant admitted carrying his 
heavy duffle bag and his backpack when he left the victim's 
apartment to go to his father's home.  The jury could well have 
believed that the defendant could not have cut the victim's 
throat with his right hand, but instead used his left hand.  
Moreover, the evidence strongly suggested that the victim's 
throat was cut after she was strangled.  The jury could have 
concluded that the neck wound was inflicted after the victim 
collapsed to the floor, not while the defendant was standing 
behind her, as the defendant's expert implied.  Cutting the 
victim's throat while she was in that condition would not have 
been difficult, even for someone with disabilities the defendant 
claims to have. 
15 
 
 
The defendant has not raised a substantial issue about his 
right-handedness that would have required the judge to hold an 
evidentiary hearing.  The record strongly refutes a conclusion 
that only a left-handed person could have cut the victim's 
throat.  Written findings were not required to resolve any 
issues.  We conclude that the defendant has not shown that 
counsel was ineffective in failing to pursue this issue. 
 
d.  Contrary to the defendant's argument, trial counsel was 
not ineffective for failing to request a Daubert-Lanigan 
hearing, or otherwise failing to object to or moving to strike 
the expert testimony concerning the comparison of the treads on 
the defendant's footwear with a footwear impression made in the 
blood at the crime scene.  See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 419 Mass. 15 
(1994).  The defendant emphasizes that of the four factors 
considered by the Commonwealth's expert, namely, (1) pattern, 
(2) size, and two individualizing factors -- (3) wear and tear, 
and (4) distinctive (random) marks -- the witness acknowledged 
that only factors (1) and (2) were similar, and because there 
were insufficient details as to factors (3) and (4) to enable 
the witness to conclude that they, too, were similar, the 
witness should not have been permitted to give an opinion that 
essentially was speculative.  The expert opined that a bloody 
footprint impression at the crime scene could have been made by 
16 
 
the defendant's left sandal, but he could not give a definitive 
opinion. 
 
Judges have broad discretion in deciding whether to admit 
expert testimony.  Commonwealth v. Fitzpatrick, 463 Mass. 581, 
603 (2012).  The test is whether the testimony "will assist the 
trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact 
in issue."  Mass. G. Evid. § 702 (2014).  See Commonwealth v. 
Dockham, 405 Mass. 618, 628 (1989).  An expert opinion that is 
not definitive, but expressed in terms of observations being 
"consistent with" a particular cause, or words of similar 
effect, does not render the opinion inadmissible on the ground 
that it is "speculative."  See Commonwealth v. Azar, 32 Mass. 
App. Ct. 290, 302-303 (1992), S.C., 444 Mass. 72 (2005). 
 
Here, the expert was asked if he had an opinion "to a 
reasonable degree of scientific certainty" whether the 
defendant's left sandal was "consistent with" the bloody 
footprint observed at the crime scene.  He said he had such an 
opinion, and that the defendant's left sandal "could have" made 
the bloody impression, but the impression "was not detailed 
enough for a more definitive conclusion."  Having explained to 
the jury how he applied the four factors, he further explained 
how they shaped his opinion, which essentially neither excluded 
the defendant's sandal nor led him to opine regarding the 
existence of a definitive match.  Instead he was led to an 
17 
 
inconclusive result.  Trial counsel made this quite clear in his 
cross-examination, that is, the expert's opinion did not express 
the existence of a definitive match.  The expert's opinion was 
not improper.  See Commonwealth v. Azar, supra. 
 
The defendant contends that where only two out of the four 
factors produced positive results, the expert's opinion did not 
even rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence and 
thus was speculative.  We disagree.  There is no suggestion in 
the record that a proper analysis requires a particular "score" 
among the four factors.  Rather, as with many areas of forensic 
science, prescribed factors that must be applied when 
considering a particular matter ultimately involve a matter of 
judgment, and are intended to guide and shape the expert's 
reasoning.  How the expert proceeds with the application of 
those factors is usually fertile ground for cross-examination.4  
What is often crucial is how the expert presents his or her 
opinion and analysis to the jury.  Of particular concern is the 
danger that the jury is misled into an understanding that the 
"science" at hand is "hard" science, when in fact it is "soft" 
science.  There was no danger of that in this case.  The jury 
were given the visual images of the defendant's left sandal and 
                     
 
4 If the defendant had chosen to call an expert witness to 
give an opinion that the footwear impression was not consistent 
with the defendant's left sandal, relying on the same factors as 
the Commonwealth's expert, we have no doubt that the opinion 
would have been admissible. 
18 
 
the bloody impression made at the crime scene, and the expert 
led the jury through the factors he applied in his analysis.  
Although the witness should not have been asked if he had an 
opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty but 
instead should have been asked if he had an opinion to a 
reasonable degree of certainty within the study of footwear 
impression comparison, or comparable words, it was readily 
apparent to the jury that the opinion given was a matter of 
judgment, and not a scientific result driven by precise 
mathematical calculations.  See Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 
Mass. 827, 848-850 (2011).  It was made clear to the jury that 
this was a matter they could weigh for themselves, and the judge 
instructed them that they could accept or reject an expert's 
opinion. 
 
The evidence had probative value that was enhanced when 
juxtaposed with the expert testimony about the DNA evidence from 
the defendant's right sandal.  The prosecutor did not argue 
unfairly from the testimony of the expert on footwear 
impression, as the defendant contends.  The prosecutor spent a 
significant amount of time discussing the DNA evidence in his 
closing argument.  At the end of that discussion he spoke 
briefly about the footwear impression testimony, arguing 
essentially that, when viewed together, the DNA testimony and 
the footwear impression testimony provided strong circumstantial 
19 
 
evidence that the defendant was the person who killed the victim 
because the victim's blood made its way on to the defendant's 
right sandal at about the same time the defendant stepped in her 
blood and left a footwear impression with his left sandal.  The 
powerful synergistic effect of the expert testimony was an 
entirely reasonable and proper inference to draw. 
 
Finally, the defendant has not shown that had trial counsel 
moved for a hearing under Commonwealth v. Lanigan, supra, the 
Commonwealth's expert probably would not have been allowed to 
testify.  Cf. Commonwealth v. Comita, 441 Mass. 86, 91 (2004) 
("in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel 
claim on the ground of failing to file a motion to suppress, the 
defendant has to demonstrate a likelihood that the motion to 
suppress would have been successful"). 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that counsel has not 
been shown to be ineffective as to this claim. 
 
e.  There is no merit to the defendant's claim that counsel 
was ineffective for arguing on manslaughter in his closing 
argument, a theory that was inconsistent with the primary theory 
at trial, which was that the defendant was not the killer.  The 
Commonwealth's case was very strong, and trial counsel carefully 
avoided the admission of the defendant's jailhouse confession.  
Trial counsel requested a manslaughter instruction based on 
theories of heat of passion and reasonable provocation (the 
20 
 
victim first scratched his face and then "kicked [him] out").  
His argument to the jury was more in passing than it was 
inconsistent with the primary trial strategy.  He argued at the 
very end of a closing argument that spanned approximately 
twenty-three pages of the transcript, "You must return -- must 
return a verdict of not guilty.  And at the most, at most, the 
government has proven manslaughter."  The argument was hardly 
the "abrupt switch" in strategy about which the defendant 
complains.  Rather, in the context of the entire closing 
argument and the entire trial, it was the gentle planting of a 
small seed.  It served primarily as a quiet introduction to the 
judge's instructions, and not a shift in strategy.  The 
requested instruction also gave the jury, and the defendant, an 
additional option between guilty of murder and not guilty of 
murder.  Without an affidavit from the defendant or counsel as 
to what, if anything, was discussed in this regard, we cannot 
say that counsel's strategy was manifestly unreasonable.  This 
is especially true in light of the understated manner in which 
counsel proceeded on this issue. 
 
Finally, the judge's instruction on manslaughter was the 
model instruction.  Counsel's failure to object to the 
instruction was not ineffective assistance of counsel.  See 
Commonwealth v. Tassinari, 466 Mass. 340, 356-357 (2013) 
(manslaughter charge nearly verbatim to model instruction -- no 
21 
 
error).  Taken as a whole, we think the jury understood that a 
verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree required proof 
beyond a reasonable doubt of the absence of reasonable 
provocation and the heat of passion, and that there was no error 
as in Commonwealth v. Acevedo, 427 Mass. 714, 717 (1998). 
 
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that trial counsel 
has not been shown to have been ineffective.  We also discern no 
error in the denial of an evidentiary hearing, and we conclude 
that there was no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of 
justice in the judge's failure to make written findings. 
 
4.  Review under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.  We have reviewed the 
briefs and the entire record and conclude that there is no 
reason for us to reduce the degree of guilt or order a new 
trial. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
Order denying motion for a 
  new trial affirmed.