Commonwealth v. Allen (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-054-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-11850 COMMONWEALTH vs. JAMES ALLEN. Suffolk. December 10, 2015. – April 20, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Homicide. Firearms. Defense of Others. Practice, Criminal, Instructions to jury. License. Constitutional Law, Right to bear arms. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on February 1, 2011. The cases were tried before Patrick F. Brady, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Matthew V. Soares for the defendant. Amanda Teo, Assistant District Attorney (Jennifer J. Hickman, Assistant District Attorney, with her) for the Commonwealth. Levi W. Swank, of the District of Columbia, & David A.F. Lewis & Stephen D. Poss, for Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. CORDY, J. On March 21, 2012, a jury convicted the defendant, James Allen, of murder in the second degree,[1] and of carrying a firearm without a license, possession of ammunition without a firearms identification card, and possession of a large capacity firearm feeding device without a license.[2] At trial, his defense was that he was justified in using deadly force because he was coming to defense of a friend (Shawn Buchanan) who was being threatened with deadly force by the victim, Senai Williams. The defendant timely appealed his conviction, and we granted his application for direct appellate review. On appeal, he raises several claims. First, he argues that the trial judge’s instruction to the jury on defense of another was incorrect because it improperly suggested that the defendant may have had a duty to retreat, and because it negated the possibility of a finding of so-called excessive force manslaughter by instructing that the defendant was required to avail himself of available alternatives before employing deadly force and that if the Commonwealth proved that the defendant used excessive force then it had proved that he did not act in lawful defense of another. The defendant also claims error based on misstatements by the prosecutor in closing argument; the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial testimony; insufficient evidence supporting the firearms convictions; and constitutional violations in connection with the firearm indictments. We conclude that portions of the jury instructions concerning excessive force manslaughter were erroneous and prejudicial. Accordingly, we reverse the defendant’s conviction of murder in […]