Commonwealth v. Grassie
476 Mass. 202
Mass.2017Background
- Defendant Bryan Grassie (age 18) arrived intoxicated and confrontational at a July 2012 graduation party; he repeatedly challenged attendees, including Brendan and Brian Mahoney, to fight and was seen or heard inviting a fight "two-on-one" or "three-on-one."
- After leaving the party down a dark street, the Mahoney brothers and others pursued Grassie; a short, shadowy fight ensued that an outdoor surveillance system recorded, including sounds and statements such as "He’s got a knife."
- Brendan suffered multiple stab wounds (one fatal to the abdomen) and later died; Brian suffered nonfatal stab wounds. No knife was recovered, but witnesses had seen Grassie earlier that night display a folding knife and the Commonwealth introduced model knives similar to that knife.
- A grand jury indicted Grassie for first‑degree murder (Brendan), armed assault with intent to murder (Brian), and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (Brian).
- At trial the jury received instructions on first‑ and second‑degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, self‑defense, and three mitigating circumstances (heat of passion from reasonable provocation, heat of passion induced by sudden combat, and excessive force in self‑defense); the jury convicted of second‑degree murder and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and acquitted on armed assault with intent to murder.
- The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) concluded the evidence was legally sufficient to support second‑degree murder, rejected the claim that the prosecutor’s closing improperly shifted the burden, declined to decide the Rule 25(b)(2) reduction motion on the merits because the trial judge gave no reasons, and ordered further proceedings on that motion; the SJC also declined to expand Walczak to adults now but appointed a committee to study grand jury practices and required that grand jury proceedings be recorded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder conviction | Commonwealth: evidence proves malice and absence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt | Grassie: evidence supports mitigation (heat of passion, sudden combat, or excessive force in self‑defense) such that murder finding is unsupported | Held: Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, rational jury could find absence of mitigation and guilt of second‑degree murder; sufficiency challenge fails |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument | Commonwealth: statements were proper efforts to rebut defense and meet burden to disprove self‑defense | Grassie: prosecutor shifted burden by framing self‑defense as a "claim" | Held: No improper burden shift; prosecutor’s remarks were permissible attempts to disprove self‑defense |
| Motion to reduce verdict under Mass. R. Crim. P. 25(b)(2) | Grassie: weight of evidence favors manslaughter based on mitigation; judge abused discretion denying reduction without meaningful explanation | Commonwealth: jury verdict should stand; judge did not abuse discretion | Held: Court did not decide merits because trial judge provided no reasoning; transferred the motion to the county court for the trial judge (as single justice) to reconsider and explain |
| Grand jury instructions (Walczak expansion) | Grassie: Walczak should apply to adults so grand jury must be instructed on murder elements and mitigating defenses when substantial mitigating evidence presented | Commonwealth: Walczak was limited to juveniles and postdated these indictments; grand jury practice rests largely with prosecutors | Held: Declined to expand Walczak to adults now; instead appointed committee to study grand jury practices and ordered recording/transcription of entire grand jury proceedings (except juror names) going forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979) (standard for reviewing motions for required finding of not guilty)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional sufficiency standard for convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Reaves, 434 Mass. 383 (2001) (conviction cannot rest on piling inference upon inference)
- Commonwealth v. Burgess, 450 Mass. 422 (2008) (elements and causal link for provocation/heat of passion mitigation)
- Commonwealth v. Glacken, 451 Mass. 163 (2008) (Commonwealth’s burden to disprove self‑defense and means to do so)
- Commonwealth v. Santos, 454 Mass. 770 (2009) (limits on excessive‑force manslaughter instruction when self‑defense not proven)
- Commonwealth v. Walczak, 463 Mass. 808 (2012) (Walczak protocol re: grand jury instructions for juveniles; concurring views on adult application)
- Commonwealth v. Keough, 385 Mass. 314 (1982) (example of reducing murder verdict to manslaughter under §33E on similar factual pattern)