Commonwealth v. Barry
481 Mass. 388, 116 N.E. 3d 554 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When two or more individuals' actions concurrently contribute to a victim's death, and each action is independently sufficient to cause death, each individual's conduct may be considered a proximate cause of the death, allowing both to be convicted as principals for murder.
Facts:
- On April 17, 1999, Kevin McCormack, Brian Porreca, and several others were preparing to leave a bar in Malden.
- As they entered a car, Anthony Barry and Brian Cahill, wearing dark hoods, ran towards the vehicle.
- Porreca witnessed Barry run to the driver's side and Cahill to the passenger's side.
- Barry fired a handgun into the back of McCormack's head as he sat in the driver's seat.
- Simultaneously, Cahill fired an Uzi-type weapon into the vehicle, striking McCormack, Porreca, and another passenger.
- Porreca, who was friends with both shooters, retreated into the bar and identified them by exclaiming, "Fuck'n Barry and Cahill."
- A medical examiner testified that McCormack suffered two independently lethal gunshot wounds: one to the head from a .40 caliber bullet and another to the back from a different caliber bullet.
- Police later found a Nomex hood with Cahill's DNA on it in Barry's apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Barry and Brian Cahill were convicted by a jury in a Massachusetts state trial court of murder in the first degree and other related offenses.
- Each defendant filed a first motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied after a three-day evidentiary hearing.
- Years later, the defendants filed a second motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied following a nonevidentiary hearing.
- The defendants' direct appeal from their convictions was consolidated with their appeal from the denials of their two motions for a new trial and brought before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence of causation exist to convict two defendants of murder as principals when both defendants shot the victim, inflicting two separate, independently lethal gunshot wounds, even if it is not possible to determine which wound was the ultimate cause of death?
Opinions:
Majority - Lowy, J.
Yes, the evidence is sufficient. When the conduct of two or more persons concurrently contributes to a victim's death, each person's conduct is a proximate cause of death. The Commonwealth does not need to prove which of two independently lethal wounds was the final cause of death. Here, the medical examiner testified that the victim suffered two separate gunshot wounds, one to the head and one to the back, each of which was 'in and of [itself] lethal.' Witness testimony established that Barry and Cahill were the only two shooters. Because each defendant's action was operative at the moment of death and acted with the other's to produce the death, their conduct constituted concurrent causes, making the evidence of causation sufficient to convict both as principals.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal doctrine of concurrent causation in homicide law. It establishes that the prosecution is not required to parse the precise sequence or contribution of multiple, independently fatal acts to secure a murder conviction against all actors. The decision prevents defendants from escaping liability as principals by creating ambiguity about which fatal blow 'landed first' or was the definitive cause of death. This precedent simplifies the burden of proof for the prosecution in cases involving multiple assailants who inflict simultaneous fatal injuries, ensuring that all participants who deliver a lethal blow can be held fully responsible for the resulting death.
