Commonwealth v. Humphries, 465 Mass. 762

In October 2007, the defendant fought Acevedo in Worcester; after calling out “Bobo,” a shooter in the park fired at Acevedo’s car and Acevedo fled.
The defendant was charged as a joint venturer with assault and firearms offenses though he did not possess the gun; the jury acquitted on assault with intent to murder Acevedo and convicted on several firearms offenses.
The Commonwealth argued liability based on Holley’s firearm possession by joint venture; the defendant did not introduce evidence showing Holley’s license.
The defendant argued license defenses raised defender’s burden to prove coventurer’s license; the trial court denied post-trial relief, and appellate courts affirmed.
On appeal, the court addressed license defense in joint-venture firearms liability, ineffective assistance claims, and jury instructions on the term firearm.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether license defense applies in joint-venture firearms liability	Humphries contends coventurer’s lack of license must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.	Defendant must raise coventurer’s license as a defense; Commonwealth must prove absence of license beyond a reasonable doubt.	License defense not affirmative; burden shifts to Commonwealth after defendant raises defense.
Whether failure to raise license defense pre-trial bars the claim	Rule 14 requires notice to raise license defense; failure precludes defense.	Gouse framework should apply to joint-venturer context even without initial license notice.	Rule 14 notice requirement fatal to license defense; no reversal on this basis.
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel merits relief given newly discovered evidence	Counsel should have uncovered insurance records showing prior damage to the sedan, undermining ballistic expert.	Record-supported testimony remained credible; undiscovered evidence would not have changed outcome.	No substantial prejudice; no ineffective assistance.
Whether the jury instruction on firearm definition was adequate	Court should have instructed on statutory exceptions to firearm definition when applicable.	Evidence did not raise statutory exceptions; no error requiring reversal.	Supplemental instruction not error; evidence did not trigger statutory exceptions.

Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787 (Mass. 2012) (license defense framework; burden shifts to prosecution after production)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 372 Mass. 403 (Mass. 1977) (affirmative defense concept for license; defendant must produce evidence)
Commonwealth v. Cabral, 443 Mass. 171 (Mass. 2005) (defendant's lawful authority not an affirmative defense when not peculiarly within knowledge)
Commonwealth v. Vives, 447 Mass. 537 (Mass. 2006) (affirmative defense concept; burden-shifting framework)
Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (Mass. 2011) (license defense not element; absence not burden-shifting element)
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 461 Mass. 431 (Mass. 2012) (statutory interpretation of firearm definition; minimal burden for Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Loadholt, 456 Mass. 411 (Mass. 2010) (scope of firearm definition; evidentiary standard for proving firearm length)