Background

• In 2007, the defendant was convicted in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department of assault and battery of Christopher Garden (G. L. c. 265, § 13A) and given one year of probation.
• The defendant appealed, challenging the trial judge’s jury instruction on self-defense.
• The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, Commonwealth v. King, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 194 (2010), and this court granted further appellate review.
• The court held that the trial court erred by instructing the jury only on whether the force used was greater than necessary, rather than addressing all three self-defense factors.
• The judge’s charge left the Commonwealth with the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, but the instruction did not require consideration of all self-defense elements or proportionality in a complete manner.
• The Court ultimately affirmed the conviction, finding the error did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Commonwealth v. Franchino, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 367 (2004) (sets out three-factor self-defense framework; proportionality and reasonableness)
• Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508 (1975) (instruction must explain factors to determine reasonableness of force)
• Commonwealth v. Glacken, 451 Mass. 163 (2008) (no error where jury not instructed to ignore defendant’s evidence)
• Commonwealth v. Williams, 450 Mass. 879 (2008) (no burden shifting when judge reiterates Commonwealth’s burden)
• Commonwealth v. Kendrick, 351 Mass. 203 (1966) (proportionality and factors for assessing reasonableness in self-defense)
• Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass. 675 (2002) (standard for evaluating whether error affected the verdict)
• Commonwealth v. LeFave, 430 Mass. 169 (1999) ( undue risk of miscarriage analyzed on overall trial context)
• Commonwealth v. Randolph, 438 Mass. 290 (2002) (allocates framework for evaluating prejudice from error)