Commonwealth v. Christopher Robert King, July 6, 2010
77 Mass. App. Ct. 194
Assault and Battery, Self-Defense, Jury Instructions, Closing Argument, Assistance of Counsel
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault and battery, and was sentenced to one year of supervised probation. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the judge's jury instruction on self-defense, and the prosecutor's closing argument, created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The defendant also claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the prosecutor‟s closing argument. The Appeals Court reviewed the defendant's claims under a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice standard of review, and affirmed the judgment.
Facts
On October 23, 2006, a verbal altercation occurred between the victim and the defendant while both were at a bowling establishment. The two did not know each other. One week later, both were again at the bowling establishment. The victim entered a dimly lit lounge area and was punched by the defendant.
The victim testified that he did not speak or interact with the defendant before being punched. A hostess at the establishment could only testify to the scene after the punch. The defendant and his friend both testified that the victim was verbally aggressive towards the defendant, that he blocked the defendant‟s exit, and that the victim was the first to throw a punch.
Self-Defense Instruction
In the light most favorable to the defendant, the defendant was entitled to a nondeadly force self-defense instruction. This instruction asks (1) whether the defendant had reasonable concern for his safety, (2) whether he could not have reasonably retreated, and (3) whether the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary in all the circumstances. In order for the defendant to be found guilty, the Commonwealth had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that any one of these factors did not exist.
The jury instructions given in this trial did not included the first two requirements generally contained in self-defense instructions. The judge only focused on the reasonable force requirement. The incomplete instructions was error. Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508, 512 (1975). Although there was error, it did not prejudice the defendant and actually prejudiced the Commonwealth. The judge's error deprived the Commonwealth of two separate means to defeat self-defense, and left the Commonwealth with the single opportunity of proving that the defendant used more force than was reasonable. Even though the error may have materially influenced the verdict, it was not to the defendant‟s detriment. Therefore, the error in the instruction did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Prosecutor’s Closing Argument
The defendant claimed the prosecutor's closing argument misstated the evidence and distorted key eyewitness testimony. The Appeals Court found no error. Because there was no error in the prosecutor's closing argument, counsel was not ineffective for not objecting to it. Judgment affirmed.
- Prepared by AYK
