Commonwealth v. Bois, 476 Mass. 15

Background

In August 2007 the defendant broke into his grandmother’s house, raped and strangled his six‑year‑old cousin, wrapped her body in bedding, stole cash, a cellphone, and her vehicle, and fled; he was captured after a high‑speed chase and while armed with a folding knife.
Indicted on murder (first degree) and multiple related counts; at trial the Commonwealth proceeded on deliberate premeditation, extreme atrocity or cruelty, and felony‑murder theories; defendant conceded the killing but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
The defendant presented no expert testimony diagnosing a mental illness or opining he lacked criminal responsibility; defense relied on behavioral testimony and a general expert who had not examined the defendant; competency reports and prior treatment records existed but were not admitted at trial.
The jury convicted of first‑degree murder on theories of extreme atrocity or cruelty and felony‑murder, and convicted on most related charges; acquitted on some counts. The defendant moved for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance; motion denied.
On appeal the defendant challenged trial counsel’s handling of the insanity defense, the judge’s response to reports of a sleeping juror, sufficiency and instruction errors on armed home invasion, felony‑murder instructions, and certain prosecutor remarks; he also sought reduction of the verdict under G. L. c. 278, § 33E.
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed all convictions except vacated the armed home invasion conviction for insufficient evidence and erroneous instruction that knives are per se dangerous; court declined to reduce the murder conviction under § 33E.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (Bois)	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to use/admit psychiatric treatment records	Counsel’s investigation and expert review were adequate; deciding not to present records was strategic	Counsel failed to read or present records showing diagnoses and abuse; this undermined insanity defense	No reversible ineffectiveness: counsel relied on experts who reviewed records; decision not to introduce them was strategic and not manifestly unreasonable; no prejudice shown
Failure to address sleeping juror	Judge properly evaluated reports, held hearings, had counsel deny seeing sleep; no reliable evidence of sleeping	Judge should have conducted voir dire and taken further action	No error: judge appropriately assessed reliability and acted reasonably under circumstances
Armed home invasion—knife as "dangerous weapon" and sufficiency	Knife was dangerous as used; conviction proper	Instruction treating knives as inherently dangerous was erroneous; evidence insufficient to show knife dangerous per se or dangerous as used	Vacated: knife not shown dangerous per se; no evidence it was dangerous as used; conviction must be set aside and directed verdict entered
Felony‑murder instruction—whether jury must find "conscious disregard"	Judge may decide as a matter of law whether predicate felonies are inherently dangerous; no need for jury to relitigate that legal question	Instruction removed factual element by declaring felonies inherently dangerous without jury finding conscious disregard	Held for Commonwealth: identifying inherently dangerous felonies is a question of law for the judge; instruction was proper (other predicate felony supported murder conviction)
Prosecutor’s closing—impermissible argument and emotional appeals	Many inferences were reasonable from evidence; emotive language and calling defendant a "monster" were improper but harmless given instructions and evidence	Prosecutor exceeded evidence, appealed to juror sympathy, and displayed emotion warranting reversal	Remarks were improper and unprofessional, but not prejudicial given curative instructions, verdicts demonstrating juror discernment, and overwhelming evidence
Request under G. L. c. 278, § 33E to reduce conviction	N/A	Defendant asked to reduce to second‑degree because actions were driven by mental illness	Denied: no expert evidence at trial that defendant lacked criminal responsibility; Commonwealth’s evidence was strong

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 453 Mass. 203 (assessing ineffective assistance and miscarriage of justice standard)
Commonwealth v. McMahon, 443 Mass. 409 (strategic decisions after investigation are presumptively reasonable)
Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 433 Mass. 93 (counsel’s failure to provide medical records to defense expert can be prejudicial)
Commonwealth v. Mattei, 455 Mass. 840 (application of common‑law definition of dangerous weapon to home invasion)
Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296 (distinction between weapons dangerous per se and dangerous as used)
Commonwealth v. Delaney, 418 Mass. 658 (consideration of diminished capacity and mental impairment in determining intent/knowledge)
Commonwealth v. Matchett, 386 Mass. 492 (felony‑murder requires predicate felony that exhibits conscious disregard for life; inherently dangerous felonies)
Commonwealth v. Wadlington, 467 Mass. 192 (whether felony is inherently dangerous is a matter of law for the judge)
Commonwealth v. Kater, 432 Mass. 404 (standards for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument)