Commonwealth v. McKinnon
446 Mass. 263, 843 N.E.2d 1020, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 45 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Massachusetts law G. L. c. 278, § 8A, the term "dwelling" for the purposes of the castle doctrine, which negates an occupant's duty to retreat, is limited to the enclosed physical structure of the house and does not extend to open areas such as a porch or outside stairs.
Facts:
- Derek and Jeffrey Morey, Jr. attended a party at the Sullivan residence, where the defendant, McKnight, had been living for nearly a year.
- A fight broke out at the party involving the Morey brothers and other guests, but not McKnight.
- After the fight, the Morey brothers left and returned around 1 a.m. with their father, Morey, who parked in the Sullivans' driveway.
- Upon seeing the Moreys return, one of the Sullivan sisters gave McKnight a knife.
- Morey yelled from the driveway, threatening that someone was going to 'pay' for his son being hit and later shouted, 'If you don’t come out, I’m coming in.'
- McKnight grabbed a baseball bat, went outside, and engaged in a physical altercation with Morey and his sons in the driveway/yard area.
- During the fight, McKnight struck Morey multiple times with the baseball bat and stabbed him in the neck with the knife.
- McKnight also struck Derek Morey over the head with the bat during the altercation.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, McKnight, was prosecuted in a Massachusetts trial court on three counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.
- At trial, the defendant's counsel requested a jury instruction on the 'castle law,' arguing McKnight had no duty to retreat.
- The trial judge denied the request for the castle law instruction.
- A jury convicted McKnight of two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon against Morey and acquitted him of the charge against Derek.
- McKnight appealed his convictions, challenging the judge's refusal to give the castle law instruction.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court transferred the case from the intermediate appellate court for its own 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:
Does the term 'dwelling' in Massachusetts's castle law statute, G. L. c. 278, § 8A, encompass an open porch and outside stairs, thereby relieving an occupant of the duty to retreat when defending against an individual in those areas?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
No, the term 'dwelling' in the castle law statute does not extend to an open porch or outside stairs. The court's reasoning is grounded in the plain language of G. L. c. 278, § 8A, which expressly limits the defense to situations where an intruder is 'unlawfully in said dwelling.' The court holds that 'dwelling' implies an enclosed area, and precedent establishes that open areas are not afforded the same legal protections as the residence itself. Because the altercation occurred outside the enclosed portion of the house, McKnight was not entitled to a castle law instruction, and the trial court correctly included the duty to retreat in its self-defense instructions.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the geographical scope of the Massachusetts castle doctrine, establishing a clear bright-line rule. By defining 'dwelling' as only the enclosed portion of a home, the court limits the circumstances under which an individual can use deadly force without first attempting to retreat. The ruling clarifies that the special protections of the castle doctrine do not apply to confrontations on porches, stoops, or yards, thereby reinforcing the general duty to retreat in self-defense scenarios that occur within the curtilage but outside the physical home. This interpretation prevents an expansion of the doctrine that could otherwise be used to justify the use of deadly force in a wider range of property-line confrontations.
