Com. v. Nieves
Decision Date | 29 March 1985 |
Citation | 476 N.E.2d 179,394 Mass. 355 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Jose L. NIEVES. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Michael S. Gallagher, Cambridge, for defendant.
Dyanne Klein Polatin, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Com.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and WILKINS, ABRAMS, NOLAN and O'CONNOR, JJ.
The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree for the shooting death of John Mikinnis. He was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at Walpole. After considerable delay, the defendant's appeal was entered in the Appeals Court. That court summarily affirmed the defendant's conviction. 15 Mass.App. 1102 (1983). A single justice of this court, treating the defendant's petition to docket his appeal as an application for further appellate review filed late, referred the case to the full court in order that the defendant receive the review to which he is entitled under G.L. c. 278, § 33E. 391 Mass. 1102, 459 N.E.2d 826. 1 We now reverse the defendant's conviction.
The evidence presented at trial was substantially as follows. On the night of April 11, 1974, the defendant and a companion met at a bar in Lawrence owned and operated by the victim, John Mikinnis. There were approximately eight other people in the bar, one of whom was Betty Merrick, Mikinnis's girlfriend. Sometime after midnight, the defendant approached Merrick and began to bother her. Mikinnis told the defendant that he would have to leave, and the two men walked toward the door. Merrick testified that she saw a gun in the defendant's hand as he walked toward the door. There was conflicting testimony as to whether Mikinnis, who was much larger than the defendant, shoved or threw the defendant out the door, or merely walked with him toward the door. Various witnesses testified that they heard two loud noises which sounded like firecrackers, "pops," or gunshots as the two men stood in the doorway. Mikinnis then walked back behind the bar, sat down, and stated that he had been shot. He died later that day from gunshot wounds to the chest and abdomen.
Because the defendant alleges error in the judge's charge to the jury on the issue of burden of proof, we summarize the relevant portions of the charge and set forth the challenged language in full. The judge began by instructing the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent, and that the Commonwealth has the burden of proving every essential element of the crime charged. He discussed the concept of reasonable doubt, and repeated that the Commonwealth is obligated He instructed the jury to draw no inference from the defendant's decision not to testify, and again charged,
The judge then turned to the crimes of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter. He defined murder in the first degree as "a killing which is deliberately premeditated with malice aforethought," and murder in the second degree as "an intentional killing with malice aforethought." On the required element of malice, the judge charged, "Any intentional killing of a human being without legal justification or excuse, with no extenuating circumstances sufficient to reduce the crime to manslaughter, is malicious within the meaning of that expression...." He further charged,
After defining the term "deliberate premeditation," and explaining the difference between first and second degree murder, the judge discussed voluntary manslaughter. 2 The judge told the jury that the difference between murder and manslaughter was the absence of malice. He defined manslaughter as "the unlawful killing of a human being by another without malice but in sudden passion or heat of blood caused by reasonable provocation or upon sudden combat." The judge explained what is meant by "reasonable provocation," and by "sudden passion or heat of blood." He then stated that the passion
The judge then reiterated that the Commonwealth has the burden of proving the essential elements of the crime. He stated:
On appeal, the defendant alleges that the judge's charge unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to the defendant on the issue of malice, thus depriving him of due process of law. The defendant did not object at trial to those portions of the judge's charge that he now challenges on appeal. Ordinarily, when we review a conviction pursuant to G.L. c. 278, § 33E, if there was no objection at trial, our task is limited to determining whether there is a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. However, we will excuse the failure to raise a constitutional issue at trial if the theory on which the defendant has relied was not sufficiently developed at the time of trial to afford the defendant a genuine opportunity to raise his claim at that time. See Commonwealth v. Rembiszewski, 391 Mass. 123, 126, 461 N.E.2d 201 (1984); DeJoinville v. Commonwealth, 381 Mass. 246, 248, 251, 408 N.E.2d 1353 (1980). In such a case, "[i]f constitutional error has occurred, we reverse the conviction unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Rembiszewski, supra.
The defendant bases his challenge to the judge's charge on the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), and Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). The defendant's trial occurred in February, 1975, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Mullaney. In Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 97 S.Ct. 2339, 53 L.Ed.2d 306 (1977), the Supreme Court held that Mullaney was fully retroactive. In Commonwealth v. Stokes, 374 Mass. 583, 588-590, 374 N.E.2d 87 (1978), we held that with respect to trials occurring before Mullaney, we would not require a specific objection to the judge's instructions on burden of proof in order to secure appellate review. Therefore, we review the judge's charge to determine whether it comports with principles set forth in Mullaney.
"[T]he Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 370 Mass. 684, 689, 352 N.E.2d 203 (1976). A presumption which shifts to the defendant the burden of disproving any element of the crime charged thus violates the due process clause. In Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 442 U.S. at 513-514, 99 S.Ct. at 2453-2454, the Supreme Court held that an instruction that "[t]he law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts," might have been interpreted as relieving the State of its burden of proof on the crucial issue of the defendant's state of mind, and was therefore unconstitutional. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt also extends to the existence of facts or circumstances which would mitigate the degree of the defendant's culpability. Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra 421 U.S. at 697-698, 95 S.Ct. at 1888-1889. Thus, when the issue is properly raised, in order to obtain a murder conviction the Commonwealth must prove the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation beyond a reasonable doubt. Id....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. McLeod
...provocation, adequately defined [that factor] and established [it] as negating a finding of malice.' " 16 Commonwealth v. Nieves, 394 Mass. 355, 360, 476 N.E.2d 179 (1985), quoting Commonwealth v. Stokes, supra 374 Mass. at 591, 374 N.E.2d 87. Commonwealth v. Doucette, supra 391 Mass. at 45......
-
Commonwealth v. Harris
..."malice is implied" instructions contribute to the creation of unconstitutional mandatory presumptions. See Commonwealth v. Nieves, 394 Mass. 355, 360-361, 476 N.E.2d 179 (1985) ; Commonwealth v. Richards, 384 Mass. 396, 402-403, 425 N.E.2d 305 (1981) ; Commonwealth v. Callahan, 380 Mass. 8......
-
Com. v. Miranda
...374 Mass. at 588-589, 374 N.E.2d 87; DeJoinville v. Commonwealth, 381 Mass. at 248-251, 408 N.E.2d 1353; Commonwealth v. Nieves, 394 Mass. 355, 359, 376 N.E.2d 174 (1985). See also Commonwealth v. McDuffee, 379 Mass. 353, 348 N.E.2d 463 (1979), reversing, as burden-shifting, the rule follow......
-
Alves v. Matesanz
...is presumed from use of a deadly weapon or that use of a deadly weapon is malicious offends the Constitution. In Commonwealth v. Nieves, 394 Mass. 355, 476 N.E.2d 179 (1985), the trial judge gave the following `If a man intentionally and without legal justification, excuse or extenuation us......