Commonwealth v. Asher
31 N.E.3d 1055, 471 Mass. 580 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Jury instructions regarding self-defense for police officers must acknowledge their authority to use reasonable force to perform official duties and must not include a duty to retreat; however, the omission of such instructions is not reversible error if the evidence of excessive force is so overwhelming that the error did not prejudice the verdict.
Facts:
- Springfield police officers stopped a vehicle for a defective muffler, during which a passenger, Melvin Jones, appeared to hide something in his waistband.
- Defendant Jeffrey Asher, a police officer, arrived to assist and helped conduct a patfrisk of Jones.
- Jones struggled during the frisk, throwing an elbow and attempting to run, but was quickly caught and pinned over the hood of a cruiser by two other officers.
- While Jones was bent over the hood with officers securing him, Asher struck Jones repeatedly with a flashlight, hitting his head and upper body.
- Asher continued to strike Jones even after Jones fell to the ground and was lying still.
- Jones suffered severe injuries, including fractures to his nose and orbital socket and permanent vision loss in one eye.
- Jones was found to be unarmed, possessing only narcotics.
- A bystander recorded the incident on video, which showed the beating but did not support Asher's claim that officers yelled about Jones having a gun.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth charged the defendant in the District Court Department with assault and battery and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.
- The defendant filed a pretrial notice of defenses including self-defense, defense of others, and defense of a law enforcement officer's right to use force.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial where the defendant requested specific jury instructions on police privilege.
- The trial judge rejected the defendant's proposed instructions and instead gave standard instructions on self-defense including a duty to retreat.
- The jury convicted the defendant on both charges.
- The defendant appealed the conviction.
- The Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the Appeals Court on its own initiative.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial judge commit prejudicial error by failing to instruct the jury on a police officer's right to use reasonable force and by erroneously instructing that the officer had a duty to retreat before using force in self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Botsford
Yes, the instructions were erroneous, but no, the error was not prejudicial to the verdict. The court reasoned that the trial judge failed to properly tailor the self-defense instructions to the defendant's status as a police officer. Specifically, the judge erred by including a standard 'duty to retreat' instruction, which is inappropriate for police officers who have a duty to pursue investigations and protect the public. Furthermore, the instructions should have explicitly stated that an officer is entitled to use force that is necessary and reasonable to carry out official duties. However, under the harmless error standard, the court affirmed the convictions because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The video evidence and testimony established that Asher used extreme force—beating a secured man with a flashlight while he was bent over a car and later lying on the ground—that clearly exceeded what was reasonable, regardless of the instruction errors. Therefore, the court could conclude with 'fair assurance' that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the errors.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the standards for jury instructions in cases involving police use of force. It explicitly establishes that the standard civilian 'duty to retreat' element of self-defense does not apply to on-duty police officers, as such a requirement conflicts with their professional obligation to enforce the law and protect the public. The ruling emphasizes that police are judged by a standard of objective reasonableness specific to their role. However, the case also demonstrates the high threshold for overturning a conviction based on instructional error. By applying the harmless error doctrine, the court signaled that even significant legal errors in the trial process will not result in a new trial if the objective evidence (in this case, video footage) undeniably proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
