Commonwealth v. Shea
1986 Mass. LEXIS 1457, 398 Mass. 264, 496 N.E.2d 631 (1986)
Rule of Law:
An erroneous jury instruction on the specific intent to kill required for armed assault with intent to murder does not necessitate reversal under the 'substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice' standard if the defendant's primary defense at trial did not contest the element of intent, and the evidence of intent to kill was overwhelming.
Facts:
- In the early morning of November 7, 1982, Jeffrey Thyng left the Thunderbird Country Club in Tyngsborough.
- Defendant Shea and Bradford Couronis approached Thyng, and after an exchange of derogatory remarks, followed Thyng across the parking lot and confronted him.
- Couronis pushed Thyng to the ground, causing Thyng to break his right hand, after which both Shea and Couronis kicked him.
- While Thyng was on the ground, he felt two or three thumps on his chest and then blindly reached up and grabbed the full beard of the man to his right, whom Thyng identified as Shea.
- Thyng then discovered he had been stabbed once in the chest and was bleeding profusely, and later "played dead."
- Tyngsborough police officer Michael Coulter observed Thyng lying on the ground, bleeding, and pursued Shea and Couronis as they ran away from the scene.
- Officer Coulter observed Shea throw a very small object to Couronis as they approached a red pickup truck, and then apprehended both men.
- Officers found a blood-covered knife in an unbuckled sheath on Shea's belt, while no weapons were found on Couronis, and no blood was on Couronis's hands or arms, but was observed on Shea's hands and right arm.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Shea was convicted by a jury in a trial court (Superior Court) of armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct.
- The trial judge sentenced Shea to two concurrent six to ten year terms for the armed assault and assault and battery convictions, and ordered the disorderly conduct conviction placed on file.
- Shea appealed these judgments to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court issued an order reversing the judgment on the armed assault with intent to murder indictment and affirming the judgment on the assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon indictment.
- On November 25, 1985, Shea's application to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further appellate review of his assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon conviction was denied.
- On January 31, 1986, the Commonwealth's application to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further appellate review of the armed assault with intent to murder conviction was granted.
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 an erroneous jury instruction equating malice aforethought with specific intent to kill in an armed assault with intent to murder case, to which no objection was made at trial, require reversal when the defendant’s primary defense theory focused on identification rather than intent, and the evidence strongly supported an intent to kill?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Connor, J.
No, an erroneous jury instruction on specific intent to kill for armed assault with intent to murder does not require reversal if the defense's primary theory did not contest that element and the evidence of intent to kill was overwhelming. The court agreed with the Appeals Court that the trial judge's instruction on intent to murder was erroneous because it impermissibly equated 'malice aforethought' with 'specific intent to kill,' contrary to Commonwealth v. Henson and Commonwealth v. Ennis. However, the court determined that this error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice because the defendant's defense at trial focused solely on the identification of the stabber, not on whether the assailant lacked the intent to kill. The court emphasized that the overwhelming evidence, specifically the severe nature of Thyng's stab wound (an inch long, "sucking air into the chest cavity," and profusely bleeding from a vital area), strongly supported a conclusion that whoever inflicted the wound intended to kill. Therefore, the defendant suffered no prejudice from the erroneous instruction on mental state. The court also affirmed that the judge’s illustration of circumstantial evidence was permissible and did not improperly influence the jury, and that there was sufficient evidence to deny the defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty given the blood-covered knife found on Shea, Thyng's testimony of grabbing Shea's beard, and the blood on Shea's hands but not Couronis's.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the 'substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice' standard, particularly when an erroneous jury instruction, unobjected to, relates to an element of the crime. It confirms that such an error may be deemed non-prejudicial if the defense strategy did not contest that specific element at trial and the evidence supporting that element is overwhelming. This ruling underscores the importance of trial strategy in appellate review of unpreserved errors and reaffirms the requirement of specific intent to kill for armed assault with intent to murder, as established in Henson and Ennis.
