Com. v. Barber
| Decision Date | 07 May 1985 |
| Citation | 477 N.E.2d 587,394 Mass. 1013 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Edwin L. BARBER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Christopher S. Skinner, Committee for Public Counsel Services, Lynn, for defendant.
Paul J. McCallum, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and LYNCH, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appealed from his conviction for assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. The Appeals Court reversed the defendant's conviction on the ground that the judge should have instructed the jury on the issue of self-defense. Commonwealth v. Barber, 18 Mass.App.Ct. 460, 465, 466 N.E.2d 531 (1984). We granted the Commonwealth's application for further appellate review. 393 Mass. 1101, 469 N.E.2d 830. We conclude, as did the Appeals Court, that the judge committed reversible error when he refused the defendant's request for a jury instruction on self-defense.
In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to raise the issue of self-defense, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Harrington, 379 Mass. 446, 450, 399 N.E.2d 475 (1980). Commonwealth v. Monico, 373 Mass. 298, 299, 366 N.E.2d 1241 (1977). In order to raise the issue of self-defense, "[t]here must be evidence warranting at least a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) had reasonable ground to believe and actually did believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, from which he could save himself only by using deadly force, (2) had availed himself of all proper means to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force, and (3) used no more force than was reasonably necessary in all the circumstances of the case." Commonwealth v. Harrington, supra 379 Mass. at 450, 399 N.E.2d 475. Commonwealth v. Burbank, 388 Mass. 789, 794, 448 N.E.2d 735 (1983).
We conclude, based on the facts of this case, that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy these three elements and, therefore, raised the issue of self-defense. The jury's finding as to guilt necessarily rested largely on its evaluation of the credibility of the two primary witnesses at trial, the victim and the defendant. The defendant testified that he drew his knife during a fight with the victim because he feared that the victim was reaching into his back pocket for a weapon. The victim testified that he never reached into his back pocket. 1 The defendant's testimony suggests that he believed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Pike
...was reasonable, his actions in self-defense may be justifiable. See Glass, supra at 808, 519 N.E.2d 1311; Commonwealth v. Barber, 394 Mass. 1013, 1013, 477 N.E.2d 587 (1985). Cf. Commonwealth v. Naylor, 407 Mass. 333, 553 N.E.2d 542 (1990) (Commonwealth conceded that the defendant's belief ......
-
Commonwealth v. Teixeira
...means available to retreat from the conflict. See Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393, 396, 398, 701 N.E.2d 951 (1998) ; Barber, 394 Mass. at 1013, 477 N.E.2d 587. i. Reasonable belief in danger of death or serious bodily harm. As the defendant notes, there was some evidence that, during th......
-
Commonwealth v Garrey, SJC-08292
...requested the judge to repeat his instruction on heat of passion as a mitigating factor. The defendant's reliance on Commonwealth v. Barber, 394 Mass. 1013 (1985), is misplaced. In that case no instruction on self-defense was given. Here, the evidence at trial indicated that the defendant i......
-
Com. v. Clark
...379 Mass. 446, 450, 399 N.E.2d 475 (1980). Commonwealth v. Deagle, 10 Mass.App. 748, 750, 412 N.E.2d 911 (1980). Commonwealth v. Barber, 394 Mass. 1013, 477 N.E.2d 587 (1985). There could be no issue of self-defense relating to the charge of rape or kidnapping. The charges of assault and ba......