Commonwealth v. Ferguson

SJC-13574 · Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · March 6, 2026 · No. SJC-13574

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviews James W. Ferguson's convictions, including first-degree felony-murder, aggravated burglary, unarmed robbery, larceny of firearms, and unlawful firearm possession. The court rejects his claims concerning an involuntary manslaughter instruction and prosecutorial misconduct, and declines to reduce the murder conviction under G. L. c. 278, § 33E. It vacates the unlawful firearm possession convictions for failure to prove lack of licensure and vacates the aggravated burglary conviction as duplicative of the felony-murder conviction, affirming the remaining convictions.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Writing for the Court
Gaziano, J.; Budd, C.J.; Wendlandt, J.; Georges, J.; Wolohojian, J.
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decision date
March 6, 2026
Docket number
SJC-13574
Procedural posture
Direct appeal from convictions entered after a jury trial in the Massachusetts Superior Court Department, including first-degree felony-murder, aggravated burglary, unarmed robbery, larceny of firearms, and unlawful possession of firearms.
Standard of review
The denial of a motion for a mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Because defense counsel timely objected to the prosecutor's closing statements, the court reviewed the alleged prosecutorial misconduct for prejudicial error. The propriety of an involuntary manslaughter instruction was assessed by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. The court independently reviewed the record under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
James W. Ferguson v. Commonwealth
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

criminal procedurejury instructionsprosecutorial misconductdouble jeopardyappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedurehomicideevidencejury instructionsappellate proceduresentencing and remedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter.
  2. Whether the prosecutor's allegedly burden-shifting, evidentiary, and emotionally charged closing statements required a mistrial.
  3. Whether Ferguson's five unlawful firearm-possession convictions had to be vacated because the Commonwealth failed to prove that he lacked a firearm license.
  4. Whether the aggravated burglary or unarmed robbery conviction was duplicative of the felony-murder conviction.
  5. Whether extraordinary relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, should reduce the first-degree felony-murder conviction to second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.

Holdings

  1. The trial judge properly refused to instruct on involuntary manslaughter because no reasonable view of the evidence supported a finding that Ferguson and his coventurers acted only wantonly or recklessly rather than with conduct creating a plain and strong likelihood of death.
  2. The prosecutor's challenged closing statements did not require a mistrial. The burden-related and evidentiary statements were permissible arguments or reasonable inferences, and any possible error in asking the jury to hold Ferguson accountable was nonprejudicial.
  3. Ferguson's five unlawful firearm-possession convictions had to be vacated and the firearm charges remanded for a new trial because the Commonwealth had not proved that Ferguson lacked a license.
  4. The aggravated burglary conviction was duplicative of the felony-murder conviction and therefore had to be vacated; the unarmed robbery conviction remained in place.
  5. The court declined to exercise its extraordinary authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce Ferguson's first-degree felony-murder conviction.

Key quotations

As such, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant and his coventurers' actions did not create a plain and strong likelihood of death. (21)
The proper remedy is remand for a new trial on the firearm possession charges. (32)
When a murder conviction is [solely] based on a felony- murder theory, the underlying felony, whatever it may be, is always a lesser included offense and the conviction for that felony, in addition to the conviction of murder, is duplicative (33)
We remand this matter to the Superior Court to allow for a new trial on the charges of unlawful possession of a firearm. (36)

Factual background

According to the trial evidence, Ferguson and two coventurers entered Robert McKenna's Marshfield home to steal marijuana, firearms, and other valuables. McKenna was severely beaten during the robbery and died from exsanguination caused by a brachial-artery incision and extensive scalp lacerations. Evidence linking Ferguson to the crime included DNA on a bloodstained shirt and work glove, footwear and cellular telephone evidence, and coordinated activity with the coventurers.

Procedural history

A Plymouth County grand jury returned thirteen indictments on November 24, 2015. Following a sixteen-day jury trial in November and December 2019, Ferguson was convicted on all thirteen charges. The trial judge denied requests for an involuntary manslaughter instruction and a mistrial based on the prosecutor's closing argument. Ferguson timely appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Remand instructions

Vacate and set aside the five unlawful firearm-possession verdicts and remand to the Superior Court for a new trial on those charges. Vacate and set aside the aggravated burglary conviction. Affirm the remaining convictions, including first-degree murder and unarmed robbery.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…