Commonwealth v. Matchett
386 Mass. 492, 436 N.E.2d 400 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a death results from the perpetration of a felony that is not inherently dangerous to human life, such as the statutory felony of extortion, a conviction for felony-murder requires a finding that the circumstances of the felony demonstrated the defendant's conscious disregard of the risk to human life.
Facts:
- David Colvin owed Arthur Samson $1,500 from a gambling debt that remained unpaid for over a year.
- Samson hired Brian Matchett for $100 plus expenses to drive him from Boston to Pittsfield to collect the debt.
- Samson had heard that Matchett was a martial arts expert and had a permit to carry guns.
- Matchett brought several weapons on the trip, including a loaded pistol, a revolver, ammunition, a sawed-off shotgun, a knife, and handcuffs, as well as his German shepherd dog.
- In the early morning hours of February 13, 1979, Matchett and Samson made multiple attempts to locate Colvin's residence, including knocking on the door at 3:30 a.m.
- Later that morning, Colvin, appearing nervous, asked his neighbor, Brian Stack, to "keep his eyes and ears open."
- Matchett and Samson arrived at Colvin's house, where both men entered. Samson went in first, followed a minute later by Matchett.
- Shortly after Matchett entered, Stack heard Colvin scream followed by two gunshots. Colvin died two days later from a gunshot wound to the abdomen.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian K. Matchett was indicted in Superior Court on one count of murder in the first degree and three counts of unlawfully carrying firearms.
- A jury convicted Matchett of murder in the second degree and of all three firearms charges.
- Matchett appealed his convictions.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, on its own motion, transferred the appeal from the intermediate appellate court for direct review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a conviction for second-degree felony-murder be based on the underlying statutory felony of extortion without a jury finding that the specific circumstances of the extortion demonstrated a conscious disregard for human life?
Opinions:
Majority - Liacos, J.
No. When a death results from the perpetration of the statutory felony of extortion, there can be no conviction of felony-murder in the second degree unless the jury finds that the extortion involved circumstances demonstrating the defendant’s conscious disregard of the risk to human life. The felony-murder rule substitutes the intent to commit the underlying felony for the malice aforethought required for murder. For this theory of 'constructive malice' to be tenable, the felony must be such that an intent to commit it exhibits a conscious disregard for human life. Many statutory felonies, including extortion, are not inherently dangerous and can be committed in ways that pose no risk to life. Automatically applying the rule to such felonies would violate the fundamental principle that criminal liability requires a culpable mental state regarding the resulting death. Therefore, the court limits the rule's application to felonies that are either inherently dangerous or are perpetrated in a manner that demonstrates a conscious disregard for the risk to human life.
Dissenting - Nolan, J.
Yes. A conviction for felony-murder should be upheld where the underlying felony of attempted extortion was committed in an inherently dangerous manner. The dissent argues it is fanciful to deny that the attempted extortion, in this case, was inherently dangerous. The defendant went to the victim's house armed with two loaded guns, a sawed-off shotgun, a knife, and handcuffs to collect a debt. This conduct created a natural and probable consequence of homicide. The felony-murder rule applies to other inherently dangerous crimes like arson and robbery, and the attempted extortion as perpetrated here was equally, if not more, dangerous. Therefore, the judge's instructions on the felony-murder rule were proper.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the common law felony-murder rule in Massachusetts for felonies that are not inherently dangerous to human life. It moves away from a strict liability approach, where any death during any felony constitutes murder, toward a more nuanced inquiry. The court now requires a finding that the defendant's conduct during the commission of the underlying felony demonstrated a 'conscious disregard of the risk to human life,' effectively reintroducing a malice-like element for a subset of felonies. This holding aligns Massachusetts with a modern trend of restricting the felony-murder doctrine, which many courts and scholars view as a harsh and archaic legal fiction.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Matchett