Commonwealth v. Hinds
927 N.E.2d 1009, 457 Mass. 83, 2010 Mass. LEXIS 304 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, the defense of reasonable provocation requires evidence that the provocation came from the victim and that the killing occurred before a sufficient cooling-off period had elapsed. Similarly, a defense of excessive force in self-defense is only available if there is evidence that the defendant was entitled to use some degree of force in the first instance.
Facts:
- Daniel Hinds lived with his mother in a house she owned.
- Hinds's half-brother, Joseph Warren Beranger (Warren), held a durable power of attorney for their mother.
- Following a dispute over access to the mother's home, Warren sent an email to Hinds threatening to sell the house.
- Hinds obtained a temporary protective order against Warren, which a judge dismissed on the morning of October 16, 1998.
- After the court hearing, Hinds returned home, saw Warren and his wife Mary Beranger standing on a nearby street corner, retrieved a gun from his car's trunk, and went back inside his house.
- Hinds's sister, Patricia Melo, then entered the house and argued with him, at which point Hinds shot her in the head.
- Hinds immediately walked outside to the street corner and shot and killed Mary and Warren.
Procedural Posture:
- This was the defendant Daniel Hinds's second trial; his first convictions were reversed and remanded by the Supreme Judicial Court.
- In a new trial in the Superior Court, a jury convicted Hinds of murder in the first degree of Warren, murder in the second degree of Mary, and other related charges.
- Represented by new counsel, Hinds appealed his convictions directly to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
- On appeal, Hinds (the appellant) argued that the trial judge erred by refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, while the Commonwealth (the appellee) argued the judge's decision was correct.
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 err by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on theories of reasonable provocation or excessive use of force in self-defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Gants, J.
No. The trial judge did not err because the evidence did not support a voluntary manslaughter instruction. Voluntary manslaughter requires mitigating circumstances such as reasonable provocation or excessive force in self-defense. Regarding reasonable provocation, the court reasoned that any provocation must come from the victim. Melo's conduct inside the house could not legally provoke the killings of Mary and Warren outside. Warren's threat to sell the house occurred thirteen days prior, which is a legally sufficient 'cooling-off' period for a reasonable person. The court explicitly rejected a subjective standard that would account for the defendant's alleged paranoia. Regarding excessive force in self-defense, this instruction is only available when a defendant was entitled to use at least some force. Here, there was no evidence that Hinds had reasonable grounds to believe he was in immediate danger from Mary or Warren, who were merely standing on a street corner. Instead of retreating, Hinds chose to confront them with a gun after already shooting his sister, negating any claim of self-defense.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the objective nature of the 'reasonable person' standard in the context of voluntary manslaughter defenses. It clarifies that a defendant's subjective mental state, such as heightened anxiety or paranoia short of legal insanity, does not alter the analysis of what constitutes adequate provocation or a reasonable fear of imminent harm. The case strictly maintains the requirement that provocation must come from the victim and be immediate, preventing defendants from using past grievances to mitigate a murder charge. It also solidifies the principle that the excessive force in self-defense mitigation is not a freestanding defense but is contingent upon an initial, valid claim to the use of some force.
