Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden ruled on October 21, 2026 that an off-duty Boston police officer acted lawfully when he shot and killed a man inside the Chick-fil-A at 569 Boylston Street in March 2025. The officer, Jose Valenzuela, will not face criminal charges. According to Hayden’s report, Lemark Jaramillo, 32, had chased a teenager into the crowded restaurant with a folding knife, ignored repeated commands to drop it, and “was literally about to plunge it downward” into the teen’s back when the officer fired.
Here is what the report says happened, the law it applied, and what a district attorney’s review does and does not decide.
What the report says happened
The six-page report, dated October 15 and released October 21, draws on surveillance video, body camera video, 911 audio, the autopsy and interviews with the officer and at least 55 civilians. According to the report:
- The Chipotle fight. At about 5:19 p.m. on March 1, 2025, Jaramillo went into the Chipotle at 553 Boylston Street and asked three times for the code to the second-floor men’s room. Three teenagers were eating near the restrooms. After Jaramillo and one of the teens bumped shoulders on the stairs, two of the teens went back upstairs, and one banged on the men’s room door with his fist. Jaramillo came out and the two began fighting. The video does not show who threw the first punch. It does show the teen punching Jaramillo at least twice in the face, breaking his sunglasses and cutting his eyebrow.
- The knife. Jaramillo then opened a folding knife. The teen backed away, at one point holding a chair between them, and ran down the stairs and out onto Boylston Street. Jaramillo followed at a fast walk. The three teenagers went into the Chick-fil-A a few doors down.
- The officer. Valenzuela was off duty, in civilian clothes, standing in line to pick up food while his wife waited in their car. He was carrying his personal 9 mm handgun in a concealed holster. He saw the teens come in, one of them scared and upset, followed by a man with blood on his forehead and a knife in his right hand.
- The commands. The restaurant video has no audio, but the report says numerous witnesses confirmed that Valenzuela loudly identified himself as police and repeatedly told Jaramillo to drop the knife. Jaramillo kept advancing on the teen, holding the knife overhead.
- The shots. The teen ran out of room near the counter and doubled back toward the exit, which was blocked by customers, including children, huddled against a wall. Jaramillo caught up to him from behind and raised the knife again. Valenzuela, a few feet away, fired three times. All three rounds hit Jaramillo, two in the chest and one in the left shoulder.
- After. Valenzuela called 911 and said, “I shot a suspect, he was trying to stab a kid, can you send EMS and more units over here, please?” The recording captured him trying to give Jaramillo medical aid, with help from a civilian. Jaramillo was pronounced dead at a hospital. No one else was hurt.
The report says the two teenage boys later gave police accounts that contradicted each other and the Chipotle video and “minimized their own role.” Hayden wrote that this did not change the analysis, because Valenzuela did not know about the earlier fight. “He knew only what he saw,” the report says: a man with a knife pursuing a younger male into a crowded restaurant and trying to stab him “a few feet from the officer despite commands to stop.”
The legal standard the DA applied
The report says an officer’s use of deadly force, including during an off-duty incident, “must be objectively reasonable in light of all the circumstances confronting the officer.” It relied on three cases:
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, not with hindsight, allowing for the fact that officers “are often forced to make split-second judgments.”
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014). Officers justified in firing to end a severe threat to public safety “need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
- Commonwealth v. Asher, 471 Mass. 580 (2015). The SJC said a police officer “has an obligation to protect his fellow officers and the public at large that goes beyond that of an ordinary citizen, such that retreat or escape is not a viable option for an on-duty police officer faced with a potential threat of violence.”
Hayden concluded that Valenzuela was left “with no option other than shooting him in order to protect the safety of others.”
Defense of another under Massachusetts law
The report frames the case around police use of force, but the shooting was also a defense of a third person, and Massachusetts recognizes that justification for anyone, not just police. In Commonwealth v. Martin, 369 Mass. 640 (1976), the SJC held that a person “is justified in using force against another to protect a third person when (a) a reasonable person in the actor’s position would believe his 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 himself.” The court added that the justification “is lost if he uses excessive force.”
For police officers, the 2020 police reform law added a statutory limit. Under G.L. c. 6E, § 14(b), a law enforcement officer “shall not use deadly force upon a person unless de-escalation tactics have been attempted and failed or are not feasible based on the totality of the circumstances and such force is necessary to prevent imminent harm to a person and the amount of force used is proportionate to the threat of imminent harm.” Hayden’s report does not cite § 14 or discuss whether it applies to an off-duty officer. Its factual findings, that Jaramillo ignored repeated commands while about to stab someone, go to the same questions of imminence and necessity.
What a DA review decides
- Who investigates. Under G.L. c. 38, § 4, the district attorney “shall direct and control the investigation of the death” in cases the medical examiner takes. Hayden’s report says his office’s purpose was “to determine whether any person bore criminal responsibility for this homicide.” An assistant district attorney who heads the office’s public accountability unit led the review.
- Criminal charges only. The decision is that no criminal charges are warranted. It is not a court ruling and does not decide any civil claim.
- The department’s review. The Boston Police Firearm Discharge Investigation Team separately found the shooting objectively reasonable and within department rules. The DA’s report says it made an independent determination.
- A reprimand on a separate issue. A footnote says the department gave Valenzuela a spoken reprimand because he had not taken a separate safety course required for carrying an off-duty personal weapon. The report says that has “no bearing” on the finding that he acted reasonably and lawfully.
The press release says the redacted investigative file is available through a link that expires in 30 days.
Frequently asked questions
Was the officer in the Boylston Street Chick-fil-A shooting charged?
No. On October 21, 2026, Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden released a report finding that off-duty Boston police officer Jose Valenzuela used lawful force when he shot Lemark Jaramillo on March 1, 2025, and that criminal charges are not warranted.
Why did the DA find the shooting justified?
The report says video showed Jaramillo about to stab a teenager in the back after ignoring repeated commands to drop his knife, in a restaurant crowded with customers, including children. Hayden found the shots were necessary to prevent the teen or anyone else from being killed or seriously hurt.
Can a civilian use force to protect someone else in Massachusetts?
Yes. Under Commonwealth v. Martin (1976), a person may use force to protect a third person if a reasonable person in that position would believe intervention necessary and the third person would be justified in using that force to protect themselves. The justification is lost if the force is excessive.
Who decides whether a police shooting in Boston is a crime?
The Suffolk County District Attorney, who directs death investigations in the county under G.L. c. 38, § 4. The DA’s decision concerns criminal charges only and is separate from the police department’s internal review and any civil case.
Sources: Report of District Attorney Kevin R. Hayden regarding the fatal shooting of Lemark Jaramillo on March 1, 2025 (Oct. 15, 2026) and Suffolk District Attorney’s Office press release, Oct. 21, 2026, both read in full; WCVB, NBC10 Boston and Boston 25 News, Oct. 21, 2026. Graham, Plumhoff, Asher and Martin confirmed on CourtListener; G.L. c. 6E, § 14 and c. 38, § 4 read at malegislature.gov. General information, not legal advice.