Commonwealth v. Grassie (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-006-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12061 COMMONWEALTH vs. BRYAN M. GRASSIE. Plymouth. September 6, 2016. – January 6, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Homicide. Assault and Battery by Means of a Dangerous Weapon. Evidence, Self-defense. Self-Defense. Practice, Criminal, Argument by prosecutor, Verdict, Grand jury proceedings. Grand Jury. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on September 21, 2012. The cases were tried before Frank M. Gaziano, J., and a renewed motion for a required finding of not guilty was considered by him. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Kenneth H. Anderson (Greg L. Johnson with him) for the defendant. Robert C. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Argie K. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. The defendant appeals from his convictions of murder in the second degree and a related charge. He argues that, based on the evidence presented at trial and the prosecutor’s closing argument, his murder conviction should be reversed or reduced to a conviction of manslaughter. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of murder in the second degree and that the prosecutor’s closing argument was not improper. However, for the reasons discussed below, we do not decide whether the defendant is entitled to a reduced verdict. The defendant argues as well that this court should expand its holding in Commonwealth v. Walczak, 463 Mass. 808 (2012), to require that in all cases where the Commonwealth seeks to indict a person for murder, whether the person is a juvenile (as in Walczak) or an adult (as here), and there is substantial evidence of mitigating circumstances or defenses presented to the grand jury, the grand jury must be instructed on the elements of murder and the significance of mitigating circumstances and defenses. We conclude that this defendant is not entitled to relief based on the absence of any such instructions. However, we also believe it is important for the court to gain a better understanding of current grand jury instruction practices before deciding whether the holding of the Walczak case should be expanded in the future. Accordingly, we will appoint a committee to study and make recommendations […]