Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct Assault Battery Charged Lawyers Attorneys
COMMONWEALTH vs. STEVEN SOMMER.
APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
July 13, 2010, Decided
The charges stemmed from a fight between Steven Sommer, the defendant and his niece's boyfriend. Both the defendant and the boyfriend testified that the other instigated the fight. A friend of the boyfriend's testified that the defendant started the fight, but the effect of that testimony was modulated by effective cross-examination.
A fourth witness, who simply happened on the scene, was able to testify only that he saw the two men fighting. The defendant, was charged with
assault and battery, G. L. c. 265, 13A(a); threats to commit a crime, G. L. c. 275, 2; disorderly conduct, G. L. c. 272, 53; and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, 15A(a). After trial before a jury, he was convicted of
assault and battery and disorderly conduct, and acquitted on the remaining charges.
Issues:
Whether there was a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice?
Whether the trial judge erred in refused to give a "first aggressor" instruction in accordance with Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649, 824 N.E.2d 1 (2005)?
The Court found that the judge declined to give the instruction because he, along with the prosecutor, understood Adjutant to apply only when a defendant had knowledge of the victim's earlier aggressive behavior. That, as the Commonwealth concedes, was error, for Adjutant dealt specifically with admission of evidence of prior aggressive behavior about which the defendant knew nothing. The judge, however, did give a careful self-defense instruction. He also permitted introduction of evidence of the victim's prior conviction for assault by means of a dangerous weapon, and, although all parties agreed that that evidence was admitted solely to impeach the victim's credibility, the judge gave no limiting instruction to that effect. In effect, then, the jury had before them precisely the kind of evidence that Adjutant said a defendant was entitled to introduce. Moreover, although the court in Adjutant discussed instructions designed to "mitigate the dangers of prejudice and confusion inherent in
introducing evidence of the victim's specific acts of violence by delineating the precise purpose for which the evidence is offered," Adjutant, supra at 664, those instructions are designed to protect the Commonwealth, not the defendant, by limiting the purpose for which the jury may use evidence of the victim's earlier aggression. Proper purposes would include determining whether the Commonwealth had proved the absence of provocation or the defendant's lack of fear that his safety was in jeopardy.
The defendant put before the jury without any limitation evidence of the victim's prior aggressive behavior. He, therefore, had everything Adjutant, supra, entitled him to have and more. Under those circumstances, despite the undoubted misreading of Adjutant that occurred at the trial, there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Massachusetts Disorderly Conduct Assault Battery Charged Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah
The costs of hiring a Dallas DWI lawyer Acquire the greatest income in retirement by comparing pension companies Finding The right Attorneys & Lawyers in Norwalk, Connecticut Finding the right drunk driving lawyer for you Military Divorce Lawyers In Fredericksburg VA: Military Divorce Lawyers Lynchburg VA:The Marital Residence Millitary Divorce Lawyers Roanoke VA:Marital Residence Military Divorce Lawyers Staunton VA:Marital Residence Stay Informed and Earn Extra Income For Your Retirement! Using An Investing Club is a Beneficial Idea Qualities Desirable in a Criminal Defense Lawyer Lawyers - What to Look For When You're Seeking a Lawyer North Carolina Murder Burglary Robbery Dangerous DNA Test Confrontation Testimony Weapon Lawyers Attorneys