Com. v. White
Decision Date | 25 June 1984 |
Citation | 467 N.E.2d 79,392 Mass. 282 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Roy W. WHITE, Jr. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Laurence Hardoon, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Elliot D. Lobel, Boston, for defendant.
Before HENNESSEY, C.J., and ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH and O'CONNOR, JJ.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree. We affirmed on appeal. See Commonwealth v. White, 363 Mass. 682, 296 N.E.2d 822 (1973). The question presented in this case is whether a motion judge in the Superior Court was correct in allowing the defendant's motion for a new trial. That judge allowed the defendant's motion on the ground that the jury instructions given by a different judge in the Superior Court (trial judge) at the defendant's trial in 1971 violated the constitutional principle set forth in Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 524, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 2459, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). See DeJoinville v. Commonwealth, 381 Mass. 246, 253-254, 408 N.E.2d 1353 (1980). He allowed the defendant's motion on this basis even though the defendant raised no challenge to the instructions at the trial or on his earlier appeal to this court. See Commonwealth v. White, supra. The Commonwealth appealed. We transferred the case to this court on our own motion. We reverse. 1
The motion judge began by making the following factual findings as required by Mass.R.Crim.P. 30(b), 378 Mass. 900 (1979). They are for the most part identical to those we summarized in our earlier review of the defendant's conviction:
After summarizing this factual background, the motion judge addressed the jury instructions of the trial judge. The motion judge focused first on the instructions regarding the element of malice aforethought necessary for murder in the second degree. These instructions included the following language: The motion judge observed that this portion of the instruction contained language found to shift unconstitutionally the burden of proof on the element of intent in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). 2 He also observed, however, that the trial judge emphasized that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving intent and that a finding of intent may be based on "reasonable inferences drawn from certain acts performed by the individual" (emphasis in original). The motion judge next summarized the instructions regarding joint criminal venture as follows:
The motion judge then concluded that
1. In relying on Sandstrom, supra, and Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975), and in recognizing that he offered no objections to the trial judge's charge, the defendant rests his motion on an alleged violation of constitutional principle to which we have given retroactive application, and to which the defendant asserts he had no genuine opportunity to object at trial or on prior appeal because the principle was not established until after the defendant's trial and prior appeal. DeJoinville v. Commonwealth, supra at 248, 408 N.E.2d 1353. Commonwealth v. Stokes, 374 Mass. 583, 588-590, 374 N.E.2d 87 (1978). The motion judge's treatment of such issues in the first instance, and our review on appeal, concerns whether the constitutional error has been proved, and, if so, whether it may be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Rembiszewski, 391 Mass. 123, 126, 461 N.E.2d 201 (1984). Applying this standard, we conclude, as to the trial judge's instructions on malice, that the issue was waived by the defendant. As to the judge's charge on felony-murder and joint venture, we conclude that it was a correct statement of the law.
2. The defendant first challenges the trial judge's instructions on malice. He argues the judge impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on the element of malice to him in violation of Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979). We have found in the past that jury instructions which violate Sandstrom constitute error. See Commonwealth v. Zezima, 387 Mass. 748, 751-755, 443 N.E.2d 1282 (1982); Commonwealth v. Stillwell, 387 Mass. 730, 732-734, 443 N.E.2d 1272 (1982). We have so found in cases where no objection based on Sandstrom was raised at trial or upon an earlier appeal on the theory that a defendant should not be penalized where his failure to object was due to a lack of guidance in the case law regarding an evolving constitutional standard. Commonwealth v. Rembiszewski, supra at 126, 461 N.E.2d 201. DeJoinville v. Commonwealth, supra at 250-251, 408 N.E.2d 1353.
The Commonwealth urges that, read as a whole, the judge's charge as to malice was not in conflict with Sandstrom. We need not examine that argument, however, because the defendant's argument fails on another ground. An alleged violation of Sandstrom not raised at trial does not present prejudicial error warranting our consideration in a case which was tried and argued on the theory that a murder was committed. Rather, the issue may be considered waived by the defendant. See Commonwealth v. Pisa, 384 Mass. 362, 363, 425 N.E.2d 290 (1981); Commonwealth v. Lee, 383 Mass. 507, 512-513, 419 N.E.2d 1378 (1981).
This principle is applicable here. In this case, as in that of the codefendant Pisa, whether a murder had been committed was not at issue. See Commonwealth v. Pisa, supra at 363, 425 N.E.2d 290. In his closing argument, the defendant's counsel stated to the jury that Instead, White's case "was tried and argued by both parties on the theory that a murder had been committed." Id. If there was a Sandstrom type error, it clearly was not prejudicial to the defendant.
3. We cannot say that the defendant did not contest the issue of joint criminal liability. In his closing, counsel for the defendant stressed that the defendant was party to neither a murder nor a robbery: The defendant argues in his brief that "the court should have instructed that prior to being held responsible for the consequences of another's acts, the jury must be convinced first of the joint venture, then, its objectives, and that if those objectives include murder, that each shared the requisite intent." According to the defendant, the trial judge erroneously confused liability for felony-murder with liability for criminal joint venture. In so doing, the defendant argues, the trial judge shifted the burden of proof on the element of intent to participate in a criminal joint venture to murder on to the defendant.
We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Sinnott
...consideration of intoxicants with respect to a defendant's capacity to form a specific intent to kill. See Commonwealth v. White, 392 Mass. 282, 289, 467 N.E.2d 79 (1984) ("Where the alleged joint criminal venture is to murder, liability is premised on a finding that a defendant had the req......
-
Commonwealth v. Harris
...this error entitles the defendant to a new trial. a. Standard of review. Sandstrom is applied retroactively. See Commonwealth v. White, 392 Mass. 282, 285, 467 N.E.2d 79 (1984).9 Although the defendant did not object to the instruction at trial or raise the issue in his direct appeal, our c......
-
Com. v. Amirault
...failure to object was due to a lack of guidance in the case law regarding an evolving constitutional standard." Commonwealth v. White, 392 Mass. 282, 286, 467 N.E.2d 79 (1984). A defendant who fails to raise a constitutional claim does not waive that claim merely because previously decided ......
-
Com. v. Dunker
...of an alibi defense was a waiver of any Sandstrom type error in the malice charge finds support in language in Commonwealth v. White, 392 Mass. 282, 286, 467 N.E.2d 79 (1984). See also Commonwealth v. Pisa, 384 Mass. 362, 363-364, 425 N.E.2d 290 (1981); Commonwealth v. Tameleo, 384 Mass. 36......