Commonwealth v. Nee

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth
458 Mass. 174, 935 N.E.2d 1276 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The affirmative defense of renunciation to a charge of conspiracy requires a defendant to acknowledge their own participation in the criminal enterprise; a defendant cannot claim to have renounced a criminal purpose they deny ever having.

Facts:

In the winter of 2003, the defendant and Tobin Kerns began developing a plan to conduct a mass shooting and bombing at their high school.
The defendant and Kerns recruited other students, including Daniel Farley and Joseph Sullivan, to participate in the attack.
Together, the conspirators created lists of targets and necessary supplies, drew maps of the school, attempted to build explosives like napalm and a pipe bomb, and practiced with BB guns.
In April 2004, the defendant threatened to cut out the tongue of anyone who spoke to the police about the plot.
In September 2004, the defendant, along with Farley and Sullivan, arranged a meeting with Marshfield police officers.
During the meeting, the defendant provided a detailed account of the attack plan but attributed it entirely to Kerns, portraying himself and his friends as innocent followers who were not involved in the conspiracy.

Procedural Posture:

The defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the Superior Court following a jury-waived trial.
During the trial, the judge declined defense counsel's requests to apply the renunciation defense.
The defendant appealed his conviction.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the defendant's application for direct appellate 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 affirmative defense of renunciation apply where a conspirator reports the plot to law enforcement but denies his own involvement and exclusively blames his co-conspirator?

Opinions:

Majority - Marshall, C.J.

No. The affirmative defense of renunciation is not available to a defendant who fails to admit his own participation in the conspiracy. To 'renounce' a criminal purpose, one must first acknowledge having that purpose. The defendant did not inform the police of his own involvement; instead, he placed exclusive blame on his co-conspirator, Kerns. Renunciation requires a conspirator to advise law enforcement of the existence of the conspiracy and of his own participation therein. Because the defendant denied his participation, he cannot be found to have renounced an enterprise he never admitted to joining. Therefore, the evidence would not entitle the defendant to the benefits of the renunciation defense, even if it were formally adopted in the Commonwealth.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the requirements for the affirmative defense of renunciation in the context of conspiracy, even without formally adopting the defense in Massachusetts. The court's reasoning establishes that a defendant cannot use the renunciation defense as a strategic tool to shift blame and escape liability by selectively disclosing information. This holding effectively requires a complete and truthful confession of one's own role as a prerequisite for claiming abandonment of the criminal enterprise, thereby setting a high bar for any future defendant seeking to invoke such a defense.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Commonwealth v. Nee (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature