Criminal – Murder

Listen to this article

Where a defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, it was not an abuse of discretion to admit into evidence recordings of rap music, composed by the defendant, that contained lyrics describing strangulation, murder and dismemberment, while the defendant was not prejudice by the prosecutor’s erroneous remarks during closing argument.

Affirmed.

“Late in the evening on April 3, 2015, the defendant, Carlos Colina, killed Jonathan Camilien in the defendant’s Cambridge apartment by strangling him in a chokehold. After killing him, the defendant proceeded to dismember the victim’s body, dispose of the victim’s head and limbs in the apartment building’s trash room, and carry a duffel bag containing the victim’s torso out to a nearby walkway, where it was discovered the next morning. Surveillance video footage of the walkway quickly led investigators back to the defendant and his apartment, where they later discovered recordings of rap music, composed by the defendant, that contained lyrics describing strangulation, murder, and dismemberment.

“In this direct appeal from his conviction of murder in the first degree, the defendant principally argues that the admission of recordings and transcripts of the rap music lyrics in evidence was prejudicial error. The defendant further argues that the rap music evidence should have been excluded because it was seized pursuant to deficient search warrants. Additionally, the defendant contends that he was prejudiced by several other alleged errors, including the improper admission of his record of online purchase, the prosecutor’s mischaracterization of the defendant’s testimony during her closing argument, and the trial judge’s failure to give the defendant’s preferred jury instruction on nondeadly force or a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on sudden combat or reasonable provocation.

“We conclude neither the rap music evidence nor the record of online purchases was erroneously admitted in evidence. We further conclude that the trial judge’s nondeadly force instructions were correct, and that any error in the judge’s omission of an instruction on sudden combat or reasonable provocation was not prejudicial. While we agree that the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument were erroneous, the defendant was not prejudiced. Finally, after plenary review of the record, we discern no basis for relief under G.L.c. 278, §33E. Therefore, we affirm the defendant’s convictions. …

“Here, the rap music evidence was not offered for improper propensity purposes; the Commonwealth did not introduce it to show that the defendant had a propensity for violence and thus was more likely to have committed the murder. Rather, where the defendant admitted to killing and dismembering the victim but claimed to have done so in self-defense, the Commonwealth offered this evidence to undermine his claim of self-defense and to provide an alternative explanation for the defendant’s otherwise ‘inexplicable act of violence’ (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Veiovis, 477 Mass. 472, 485 (2017). Specifically, the Commonwealth sought to show that the defendant was fascinated with murder, strangulation, decapitation, and dismemberment, and that he acted on these interests when he killed the victim. Therefore, this evidence went to the defendant’s state of mind and intent. … Thus, the rap music evidence was offered for a permissible noncharacter purpose.

“Next, we consider whether the probative value of the rap music evidence was outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant. …

“Here, the judge did not abuse her discretion in finding that the rap music evidence bore a sufficient nexus to the issues in this case and that this evidence was not unfairly prejudicial. The defendant’s songs provide evidence of his state of mind and intent, which were contested at trial, as the defendant claimed to have killed the victim in self-defense. … Additionally, even if not a literal account of the events that would transpire, the lyrics aligned with key details of the killing. …

“Here, the rap lyrics had the potential to prejudice the defendant because they contained violent imagery and offensive, racially charged language. … However, the trial judge was within her discretion in concluding that this risk did not outweigh the probative value of the evidence. The lyrics here did not include generalized depictions of crime and violence, but rather discussed specific violent acts that directly correspond with the facts of the case. … Importantly, the judge provided proper limiting instructions, both before the audio recording of each song was played and during the final instructions to the jury, thereby further reducing the risk of unfair prejudice. … Lastly, as evidenced by her ruling that only the lyrics with the closest factual nexus to the crimes charged would be admitted in evidence, the judge further limited the risk of unfair prejudice by conducting an individualized analysis of each lyric, as required. …

“Thus, it was not an abuse of discretion for the trial judge to admit the rap lyric evidence. …”

Commonwealth v. Colina (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-123-24) (49 pages) (Georges, J.) A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Laurence D. Pierce, J., and the cases were tried before Elizabeth M. Fahey, J., in Superior Court. Elizabeth A. Billowitz (John H. Cunha Jr. also present) for the defendant on appeal; Emily Walsh (Nicole Allain also present) for the commonwealth (Docket No. SJC-13260) (Nov. 7, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.