Commonwealth v. Maria A. Miranda, June 21, 2010
Jury Instructions, Defense of Another
A jury convicted the defendant of assault and battery on a police officer. The defendant appealed, claiming that the judge erred in not instructing the jury on defense of another. The Appeals Court reversed the conviction.
The defendant was waiting for her friend while sitting in the driver’s seat of her SUV in a parking lot. A state trooper approached the vehicle and asked for the defendant’s license and registration. He noticed indicia of alcohol impairment, and the defendant admitted to drinking. At the trooper’s request, the defendant walked to the front of the SUV. The defendant’s friend, Battle, approached the back of the SUV and began yelling at the trooper. Battle also showed indicia of alcohol impairment. The defendant coaxed Battle into the vehicle.
Another trooper arrived. Battle got out of the SUV and began yelling at both troopers. The first trooper placed Battle in protective custody. Battle resisted and the trooper testified that during the scuffle, the defendant ran from the front of the SUV, grabbed his left arm, and pulled on it as he was attempting to handcuff Battle. The defendant testified that during the scuffle (1) Battle screamed, “You’re hurting me” to the trooper; (2) the defendant screamed “Sir, you’re hurting her” multiple times to the trooper; (3) the defendant believed the trooper was rough with Battle, and she was concerned with her own safety; and (4) she did not grab the trooper’s arm.
“An actor is justified in using force against another to protect a third person when (a) a reasonable person in the actor’s position would believe [her] intervention to be necessary for the protection of the third person, and (b) in the circumstances as that reasonable person would believe them to be, the third person would be justified in using such force to protect [her]self.” Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. at 649.
The Appeals Court applied the “any view of the evidence test,” reasoning that judges should “err on the side of caution in determining that self-defense has been raised sufficiently to warrant an instruction.” Commonwealth v. Galvin, 56 Mass.App.Ct. 698, 701 (2002). The defendant is thus entitled to an instruction if the evidence, from any source, would warrant a finding in her favor on that issue. Commonwealth v. Santos, 454 Mass. 770, 773 (2009).
The Appeals Court held that a reasonable person in the defendant’s position could believe that her intervention was necessary to protect Battle. Additionally, the evidence suggested that Battle could have been justified in using force to protect herself. Even though Battle may have been the initial aggressor, the trooper’s possible use of excessive force would have restored her right to self-defense. The Appeals Court used the Commonwealth’s version of facts in its analysis in favor of the defendant, because the theory of defense of another requires the use of force by the intervener. The defendant had explicitly testified that she did not grab the trooper’s arm.
The Appeals Court found the judge’s failure to instruct on defense of another was error and reversed the defendant’s conviction.
- Prepared by AYK
