Commonwealth v. Ann Power, March 4, 2010
76 Mass. App. Ct. 398
Instruction to Jury; Wanton or Reckless Conduct.
The trial judge in the defendant’s case had instructed the jury on four theories of homicide (first- and second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter by battery, and involuntary manslaughter by wanton and reckless conduct); the defendant contended that the judge’s instruction on the definition of involuntary manslaughter by reason of wanton or reckless conduct was insufficient. The appellate court disagreed with the defendant. The appellate court found that the trial judge properly followed the Supreme Judicial Court’s Model Jury Instructions on Homicide and that the judge correctly rejected the defendant’s proposed additional instruction addressing foreseeability of substantial harm. There was no evidentiary basis supporting the additional instruction, which is necessary for such inclusion, and Massachusetts doctrine and case law on involuntary manslaughter by wanton or reckless conduct has never required specific foreseeability of the manner of harm or death.
Sufficiency of the Evidence; Inference.
The defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of involuntary manslaughter by wanton or reckless conduct and thus appealed the inclusion of the instruction and the denial of a required finding of not guilty. Using the Latimore standard of review, the appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court noted that even though the prosecutor emphasized the homicide by intentional battery charges during the case, the fourth charge of involuntary manslaughter by wanton and reckless conduct was not eliminated – the judge repeatedly gave guidance about and clarified the fourth charge for the jury, thus rectifying any potential confusion of the jury about the prosecutor’s emphasis on the intentional charges. The appellate court further reviewed the evidence presented that could have led to the jury’s finding, including the defendant’s undeniable violation of both statutory and regulatory standards, the continuation, repetition and magnitude of the defendant’s safety infractions, and the opinion testimony of expert witnesses. The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence and thus affirmed the defendant’s conviction.
