Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Commonwealth vs. Howard Key, Jr
June 27, 1980381 Mass. 19
Summary
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions for two first-degree murders and arson. It held that the victim's statements satisfied the requirements for dying declarations, could be used to prove the murder of the other victim, and were adequately addressed by the jury instructions. The court also rejected the defendant's challenges to impeachment questioning, authentication of an out-of-State conviction, and effectiveness of trial counsel.
Holding
- Standard for admitting dying declarations. The trial judge properly determined, as a preliminary matter and by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the declarant understood that death was imminent before admitting the statements.
- Evidence of abandonment of hope of recovery. The evidence was sufficient for the judge and jury to find that the victim had abandoned hope of recovery and spoke under a sense of impending death, even though he did not expressly state that he had given up all hope.
- Use of a dying declaration to prove a co-victim's murder. When multiple homicides result from one felonious act, the dying declaration of one victim is admissible to prove the homicide of another victim killed in that same act.
- Jury instructions on dying declarations. The trial judge was not required to instruct the jury to receive the dying declarations with caution or to lecture the jury on the hearsay rule, because the charge adequately explained the preliminary factual requirements, credibility, and the jury's responsibility to determine truth.
- Impeachment and authentication of prior convictions. The challenged cross-examination and admission of the authenticated Virginia conviction did not require reversal. The questioning was permissible because the defense had opened the subject of school difficulties, the heroin questioning bore on identity, and the remaining questions were sufficiently relevant; the deputy clerk's attestation was adequate under governing Virginia law and the Massachusetts authentication statute.
- Ineffective assistance of counsel. Trial counsel was not ineffective because the challenged decisions were reasonable tactical choices or involved matters that would not materially have improved the defense, and the defendant failed to show deficient performance causing loss of an otherwise available substantial defense.
Cited authorities
- Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)
- Colo. Rev. Stat. § 52-1-20