Commonwealth v. Britt, 465 Mass. 87

Defendant convicted of murder of Calhoun with deliberate premeditation and murder of Turner with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty; also armed assault with intent to murder Phillips and unlawful firearm possession.
Trial featured a joint defense theory of self-defense/defense of another; incident occurred in ~80 seconds with defendant and Bolling arriving before victims.
Evidence included a prearranged meeting on Williams Street; defendant parked across street while Calhoun parked in front of building; Bolling shot Calhoun, then Turner, then Phillips was shot and survived.
Motion for new trial denied; issue framed around admission of a hearsay statement by the deceased victim and alleged trial-counsel deficiencies.
Judge charged on excessive-force in self-defense; joint-venture theory used to prosecute deliberate premeditated murder against defendant without requiring knowledge that Bolling was armed.
Court affirmed convictions and denial of motion for a new trial, and declined to exercise 278, § 33E relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victim's hearsay statement	Calhoun's statement showed intent to meet and collect money.	Statement implied preplanned meeting and defendant's intent.	Admission proper under present-intent exception; not reversible error.
Prosecutor's closing misstatement	Prosecutor highlighted parking as getaway choice; implied evidence not stated.	Statements misstate evidence and suggest illegal parking advantage.	No misstatement; evidence supported inference of getaway parking.
Ineffective assistance regarding parking evidence	Counsel failed to emphasize lack of alternative parking.	Counsel should have offered more parking alternatives; ineffective.	No ineffective assistance; defense reasonably argued theory; cumulative evidence insufficient to show prejudice.
Excessive force instruction	Instruction could permit conviction despite excessive force ruling.	Language misled jury into contemplating murder despite self-defense.	Whole instruction framed correctly; no error.
Knowledge of weapon for joint-venture deliberate premeditation	Must prove defendant knew weapon was possessed by partner.	No such knowledge required under joint venture for deliberate premeditation.	Overruled Lydon line; knowledge of weapon not required for joint-venture deliberate premeditation; sufficient proof of joint participation without knowing partner weapon.

Commonwealth v. Bolling, 462 Mass. 440 (Mass. 2012) (affirmed murder convictions; direct references in opinion)
Commonwealth v. Mendes, 441 Mass. 459 (Mass. 2004) (pretrial/admissibility of statements; prearranged meeting)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 463 Mass. 402 (Mass. 2012) (present intent to act; admissibility of state-of-mind statements)
Commonwealth v. Lydon, 413 Mass. 309 (Mass. 1992) (joint venture weapon-knowledge requirement scrutinized)
Commonwealth v. Phillips, 452 Mass. 617 (Mass. 2008) (joint venture weapon-knowledge standard; felony-murder context)
Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (Mass. 2009) (joint venture premeditated murder instruction; knowledge of weapon)
Commonwealth v. Green, 420 Mass. 771 (Mass. 1995) (joint venture weapon knowledge for crimes with weapon elements)
Commonwealth v. Melendez, 427 Mass. 214 (Mass. 1998) (weapon-knowledge element in joint-venture cases involving weapon)
Commonwealth v. Claudio, 418 Mass. 103 (Mass. 1994) (joint venture weapon-knowledge principle; underlying cases)
Commonwealth v. Pov Hour, 446 Mass. 35 (Mass. 2006) (clarifies joint-venture knowledge in specific contexts)
Commonwealth v. Elllis, 432 Mass. 746 (Mass. 2000) (weapon-knowledge requirements in joint-venture theory contexts)