Summary
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed Paulding’s convictions for felony-murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm. The court rejected prior interpretations requiring an instruction on murder in the second degree when the evidence supported only felony-murder in the first degree, and held that the challenged instruction did not prejudice the defendant or violate due process. The court also upheld the use of prior convictions for impeachment and vacated one duplicative armed-robbery conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether G. L. c. 265, § 1, and due process required the judge to instruct on the elements of second-degree murder when the evidence supported only first-degree felony-murder and no other theory of second-degree murder.
- Whether the trial judge abused her discretion by permitting the defendant's prior convictions to be used for impeachment.
- Whether relief was warranted under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, including reduction of the murder verdict or a new trial.
- Whether one armed-robbery conviction was duplicative of the felony-murder conviction.
Holdings
- When the Commonwealth proceeds only on first-degree felony-murder and the evidence provides no factual basis for deliberately premeditated murder, murder with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or felony-murder in the second degree, the judge is not required to instruct the jury on second-degree murder. The jury may not be instructed that it can return a second-degree verdict despite finding all facts establishing first-degree felony-murder.
- The trial judge did not abuse her discretion by permitting impeachment with the defendant's prior drug-possession and assault-and-battery convictions after balancing their probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice and giving limiting instructions.
- An armed-robbery conviction that served as the predicate felony for the felony-murder conviction is duplicative and must be vacated and dismissed.
Key quotations
“We now reject the reasoning of these cases insofar as they apply to circumstances where the Commonwealth proceeds (and the judge rules that there is evidence) only on the theory of felony-murder in the first degree and there is no evidence of malice that would support a conviction of murder on the theory of deliberately premeditated murder or murder committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty.” (438 Mass. at 10)
“Where, however, there is evidence of such malice, there would be a basis for the jury to return a verdict of murder in the second degree, and the jury should be instructed on the elements of murder in the second degree.” (438 Mass. at 10-11)
Factual background
The defendant and Jose Duarte went to a Boston park intending to commit a robbery, and Duarte was carrying a loaded handgun. During the robbery, Duarte pointed the gun and demanded the victims' property; after the victims fled, a shot was fired that killed one victim and wounded another. The defendant later admitted participating in the robbery and testified that he ran after the victims fled and heard the shot.
Procedural history
A Superior Court jury convicted the defendant of first-degree felony-murder based on participation in armed robberies, unlawful possession of a firearm, and three armed robberies. The Supreme Judicial Court rejected the instructional and impeachment claims, declined to exercise its extraordinary authority under G. L. c. 278, § 33E, to reduce the murder verdict or order a new trial, and vacated one armed-robbery conviction as duplicative of the felony-murder conviction.
Remand instructions
The armed-robbery conviction on indictment no. 97-11430-02 was vacated and that indictment was ordered dismissed. The convictions of first-degree murder and unlawful possession of a firearm were affirmed.