Commonwealth v. Dagoberto Sanchez
79 Mass. App. Ct. 189 (2011)
April 1, 2011
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Criminal, Challenge to jurors, improper peremptory challenges, self-defense, defense of others
A Superior Court jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and the unlawful possession of a firearm. The defendant argued on appeal that the trial judge erred in allowing the Commonwealth’s peremptory challenges during jury empanelment and that he also failed to give proper instructions on defense of another. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions.
Facts
The defendant and his aunt drove home from a family gathering around 7 P.M. and saw the victim standing in the middle of the street holding a baseball bat as they approached their neighborhood. The victim had been involved in a physical altercation with two or three other men during this time. The defendant exchanged words with the victim and the other men in the middle of the street. The defendant then left his car, went into his house, and returned a few moments later with a gun. The defendant told the victim to leave.
The victim did not leave. Instead, the victim approached the defendant with the baseball bat and yelled “I’ll get you,” and “I’m not scared.” The defendant’s aunt exited the car and stepped in between the defendant and victim, urging the defendant to leave. The victim, still with the bat in his hand, appeared to get ready to swing the bat and said “I’m going to kill you.” The defendant’s aunt moved out of the way and about the same time, the defendant yelled, “Watch out!” and shot the victim twice. The victim died as a result of the gunshots.
On the last day of jury empanelment, the Commonwealth used eleven peremptory challenges to exclude eight white jurors, one Hispanic man in his forties, and two males described as African-American in their twenties. The Commonwealth exercised its twelfth peremptory challenge to remove an eighteen-year-old African-American male. At this point ten people constituted the jury, five of which were African-American. Defense counsel objected to this twelfth challenge on the grounds that the Commonwealth directed its challenges at African-American young males. The judge overruled the objection, finding that a prima facie showing of impropriety had not been made.
Issue: Did the trial judge err in not finding a prima facie showing of impropriety during jury empanelment?
No, the trial judge did not err in refusing to find the prima facie showing of impropriety. The Appeals Court reasoned that the trial judge, who was in the best position to determine impropriety, properly found no impropriety, especially because the jury had five African-Americans on it. Additionally, the defendant’s argument that the Commonwealth aimed to preclude “persons of color” from the jury did not have merit because no authority considers it a discrete group. Lastly, the defendant’s argument that the Commonwealth aimed to preclude youths from the jury also did not have merit because age is not a discrete group.
Issue 2: Did the trial judge err in his defense of another instruction?
During jury instructions the judge granted the Commonwealth’s request for the “original aggressor rule” instruction, which provides that “self defense . . . cannot be claimed by a defendant who provokes or initiates an assault.” The defendant objected to this instruction and asked the trial judge to supplement the instruction by clarifying that the original aggressor rule does not apply to the defense of another, in this case, the defense of the defendant’s aunt. The trial judge did not grant the defendant’s request and solely gave the original aggressor rule.
Although Massachusetts has not specifically addressed whether the original aggressor rule applies to the defense of another, the Appeals Court found no prejudicial error in this instance because the jury instructions as given by the trial judge properly conveyed the elements of self defense and did not influence the jury, or had but a very slight effect.
Judgments affirmed
Prepared by AAO
