Com. v. Ransom

• Decision Date: 28 January 1971
• Citation: 358 Mass. 580,266 N.E.2d 304
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Harold E. RANSOM.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 304

266 N.E.2d 304

358 Mass. 580

COMMONWEALTH v. Harold E. RANSOM.

Supreme Judicial court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Dec. 7, 1970.

Decided Jan. 28, 1971.

Reuben Goodman, Boston, for defendant.

John T. Gaffney, Asst. Dist. Atty. (James M. McDonough, Legal Asst. to the Dist. Atty., with him), for the Commonwealth.

Before TAURO, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, REARDON and QUIRICO, JJ.

TAURO, Chief Justice.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree on an indictment which charged him with the murder of Theodore Williams on June 1, 1968. The case is here on the defendant's appeal under G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A--33G.

We summarize the pertinent evidence: On June 1, 1968, as a result of information received, Boston police found the body of the decedent, Theodore Williams, lying on its back. The body was removed and a search was made for a missing shoe and a possible weapon, but neither was found. The death certificate stated the cause of death to be multiple stab wounds. The medical examiner listed approximately twenty-three injuries, characterizing some as 'cuts,' some as 'scrapes or abrasions' and 'stabs.' The actual cause of death was massive bleeding into the right chest from stab wounds. The decedent had been drinking heavily. He was stabbed in the front and back. Several of the wounds had a downward direction indicating that the decedent was standing or sitting, rather than lying down, when he received them. In spite of the injuries, the decedent could have used his right arm and walked for a considerable period of time.

Witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence testified that on the evening of June 1, 1968, the defendant was at a dice game and made a bet. When the bet was called off there was an argument about the amount of money returned to the defendant. One Richard A. Christmas testified that on June 10, 1968, the defendant, whom he had known for about a year, asked him for methadone pills. At that time the defendant told him that when the argument started a person on the defendant's right stabbed the defendant in the forearm. The defendant ran into an alley and crawled under an automobile to get away from the person who had stabbed him. A friend threw the defendant a knife or other weapon and a scuffle ensued. The defendant finally got on top of his assailant and stabbed him approximately seven to ten times.

One L. C. Williams testified that it was Theodore Williams who called off the bet. The defendant claimed that some of his money was not returned, and hit Theodore Williams who ran away. The defendant chased him. On cross-examination he testified that the victim was a close friend of his.

The defendant called six witnesses and testified on his own behalf. One of these witnesses, James Holliday, the brother of the defendant, testified that L. C. Williams picked up the money. Theodore Williams said, 'I wouldn't give him none back.' The defendant became angry and took off his jacket. The witness saw Theodore Williams chasing the defendant. He looked for the defendant and then went to his girl friend's house where he found the defendant with a deep gash on his left arm and another gash on his right arm. They then went to the hospital.

One James Womack testified that on the evening of June 1, 1968, he was in the vicinity of the incident and saw the defendant running and another person running about ten feet behind.

The defendant testified that L. C. Williams picked up the money that had been bet. When he saw that L. C. Williams was not going to return the money, he took off his coat and said, 'You don't give me back my money, I will kill you.' He had no weapon of any kind and intended to 'whip' L. C. Williams. Up to that point he had never spoken to Theodore Williams. When he saw a knife in Theodore Williams's hand, he turned around and grabbed it. Theodore Williams stabbed him in the arm and the defendant ran. When he fell, Theodore Williams caught him and stabbed at his head but missed and cut his nose. The defendant ran into an alley and up to a fence where he could run no farther. Theodore Williams was still pursuing him. He picked up something resembling a spike and kept swinging at Williams. He did not know how many times he struck the decedent, but he never struck the decedent after Williams fell to the ground. After knocking Williams down, he ran away. The defendant's wounds on the forearm, back, leg and nose were treated at the hospital. The defendant further testified that he did not know Theodore Williams' name at the time of the incident. The prosecution introduced ten records of convictions of the defendant including a record of narcotics violations.

1. The defendant urges this court to grant a new trial or in the alternative to reduce the verdict from murder in the second degree to manslaughter. General Laws c. 278, § 33E, as amended through St.1962, c. 453, provides in part, 'In a capital case as hereinafter defined the entry in the supreme judicial court shall transfer to that court the whole case for its consideration of the law and the evidence. Upon such consideration the court may, if satisfied that the verdict was against the law or the weight of the evidence * * * or for any other reason that justice may require (a) order a new trial or (b) direct the entry of a verdict of a lesser degree of guilt, and remand the case to the superior court for the imposition of sentence' (emphasis supplied). In construing § 33E, we have said, '(T)he statute * * * consings the facts as well as the law to our consideration, gives us the power and duty exercised by a trial judge on a motion for a new trial, and requires us to consider the whole case broadly to determine whether there was any miscarriage of justice.' Commonwealth v. Baker, 346 Mass. 107, 109, 190 N.E.2d 555, 557.

The defendant and the decedent were strangers to each other prior to the trouble which resulted in the killing. The altercation was precipitated when the decedent or his friend called off a bet at a game of dice and picked up some of the defendant's money. There is much conflict in the evidence as to who was the aggressor in the ensuing fight. Alcohol probably played a part in so far as the decedent was concerned and drugs may have played a part in respect to the defendant. In any event, the death resulted from a senseless brawl. From all the testimony we conclude that a verdict of manslaughter would have been more consonant with justice. It is our belief that the defendant acted in the heat of a sudden affray, and that the killing was done in the heat of passion, as a result of uncontrolled anger and violent action on the part of both the defendant and the decedent.

2. This disposition of the case upon its peculiar facts under § 33E makes unnecessary prolonged discussion of assignments of error concerning whether the charge adequately permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty only of manslaughter. Considering the charge as a whole (Commonwealth v. Pinnick, 354 Mass. 13, 15, 234 N.E.2d 756), including the supplementary charge and the judge's answers to questions asked by the jury, it fully and fairly stated the basic difference between murder and manslaughter.

3. The defendant contends that differences between him and his counsel at the trial impaired counsel's effective functioning and violated the defendant's constitutional right to counsel. Before commencement of the second day of the presentation of evidence, it was brought to the attention of the court that the defendant was dissatisfied with his court-appointed counsel and that he had requested a change. ¹ The defendant gave the following reasons, among others, for his request: (1) His counsel had not brought out from the medical examiner that the victim's wounds could have been caused by a spike or weapon other than a knife. (2) His counsel advised him to say that he had a knife. (3) His counsel had advised him to plead to a manslaughter charge. (4) Contrary to the defendant's wishes, his counsel did not want the pictures of the victim's body introduced in evidence. (5) His counsel did not bring in several witnesses requested by the defendant. ² Counsel for the defendant informed the court that 'I have told him (the defendant) that I will abide by his instructions,' but also stated that in the circumstances 'it will make it exceedingly difficult for me to continue to adequately represent him for the duration of the trial.'

The applicable rule was stated in Lamoureux v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 556, 560, 233 N.E.2d 741,...