Commonwealth v. Jefferson
461 Mass. 821
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Defendants Burton-Brown and Jefferson were convicted after a jury trial in Boston Municipal Court for carrying a firearm without a license, possession of ammunition without a firearm identification card, and possession of a loaded firearm.
- Police pursued a vehicle during a late-night chase; the firearm was found on a Melville Avenue walkway after the chase, in plain view, with three rounds in the cylinder.
- Forensic testing showed no recoverable fingerprints; lab test later involved a repair and test firing the revolver, which discharged two rounds.
- Defendants argued the firearm was manufactured before 1900 and thus exempt from licensing, i.e., an antique not requiring a license to carry.
- Judge admitted some age-related testimony but denied using the antique defense as to the firearm; the defense sought to present exemption as an affirmative defense.
- Court ultimately reversed the firearm and ammunition convictions and remanded for a new trial to allow the antique defense and rebuttal evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession | Commonwealth contends evidence supported joint knowing possession. | Burton-Brown/Jefferson contend no proof of knowing possession beyond inference. | Sufficiency found; jury could infer joint possession. |
| Antique firearm exemption | Commonwealth argues no exemption for pre-1900 firearms if not proven antique status. | Defendants argue firearm manufactured before 1900 exempt from license and carrying prohibition. | Antique defense must be heard; pretrial notice required; remand for trial to consider exemption. |
| Impact of antique defense on ammunition charge | Prosecution need not rebut if no antique defense raised. | Antique status affects firearm charges and may affect ammunition conviction. | Remand on ammunition charge to address potential impact of antique defense on verdict. |
| Pretrial notice and burden allocation | No proper notice required beyond trial to raise exemption defenses. | Rule 14(b)(3) requires notice; failure prejudices Commonwealth’s ability to respond. | Need proper Rule 14(b)(3) notice; remand to permit defense and rebuttal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cordle, 412 Mass. 172 (Mass. 1992) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (sufficiency and reasonable doubt framework)
- Commonwealth v. Sann Than, 442 Mass. 748 (Mass. 2004) (constructive/actual possession standard)
- Commonwealth v. Sespedes, 442 Mass. 95 (Mass. 2004) (joint possession and control concepts)
- Commonwealth v. Acosta, 416 Mass. 279 (Mass. 1993) (definition of possession (constructive/ joint))
- Commonwealth v. Yazbeck, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 769 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (possession and evidentiary principles)
- Commonwealth v. Bartholomew, 326 Mass. 218 (Mass. 1950) (firearm as firearm despite minor repair)
- Commonwealth v. Prevost, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998) (firearm definition and repair relevance)
- Commonwealth v. Bibby, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 158 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (antique firearm exemption and licensing framework)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (Mass. 2011) (burden in licensure context)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 445 Mass. 195 (Mass. 2005) (statutory exemption as affirmative defense)
- Commonwealth v. Cabral, 443 Mass. 171 (Mass. 2005) (affirmative defense concept in firearms cases)
- Commonwealth v. Gouse, Mass. App. Ct. 2012 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (burden and affirmative defense allocation (cited in analysis))
- Commonwealth v. Purdy, 459 Mass. 442 (Mass. 2011) (remedies for miscarriages of justice when conviction reversed)
- Commonwealth v. Freeman, 352 Mass. 556 (Mass. 1967) (administrative considerations in trial values)
- Commonwealth v. Eberhart, Ante 809 (Mass. 2012) (affirmative defense burden and trial framework)
- Commonwealth v. Bartholomew, 326 Mass. 218 (Mass. 1950) (firearm mechanical viability after repair)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, Mass. App. Ct. 77 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010) (knowingly possessing loaded firearm and ammunition linkage)
- Commonwealth v. McDonald, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment interpretations)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (fundamental Second Amendment principles)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (incorporation of Second Amendment rights)