Commonwealth v. Lennon, 977 N.E.2d 33

Defendant convicted of deliberately premeditated murder.
Evidence at crime scene: unarmed victim attacked in a park, defendant stabbed victim in back and fled, knife left in victim; victim died of knife wound.
Defendant changed clothes at shelter and was later identified by witnesses; DNA from stains matched victim's DNA.
Defendant gave statements after drinking; interview ended when he stopped answering questions; no record of incapacity.
Witnesses described defendant as coherent with no slurred speech for about an hour after stabbing; some alcohol exposure prior to event but no clear debilitating intoxication.
Court affirmed conviction, denied reductions or new trial, and discussed issues on voluntary intoxication, voluntary manslaughter instructions, and courtroom closure; remanded for Sixth Amendment findings and later issued findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntary intoxication instruction warranted?	Defendant argues impairment by alcohol entitled to instruction.	Defendant contends evidence showed impairment sufficient for voluntary intoxication.	No error; no evidence of debilitating intoxication.
Instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on reasonable provocation?	Requests instruction based on provocation causing loss of self-control.	Claims provocation or sudden passion warranted manslaughter instruction.	No error; provocation not shown by evidence.
Instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on sudden combat?	Argues evidence of sudden combat justifies instruction.	No evidence victim attacked defendant or posed serious threat.	No error; no threat of serious harm.
Church-room closure during jury selection violated Sixth Amendment?	Closure denied public trial rights; sister excluded.		No reversible error; no credible evidence of closure; findings affirmed.
Relief under G. L. c. 278, § 33E (reduction to second degree or new trial)?	Requests reduction or new trial due to perceived errors.	Disagrees with necessity for reduction.	No basis for reduction or new trial.

Commonwealth v. Herbert, 421 Mass. 307 (1995) (standard for voluntary intoxication instruction)
Commonwealth v. Brown, 449 Mass. 747 (2007) (debilitating intoxication required for instruction)
Commonwealth v. DelValle, 443 Mass. 782 (2005) (when voluntary intoxication instruction is warranted)
Commonwealth v. Erderly, 430 Mass. 149 (1999) (intoxication evidence standards)
Commonwealth v. James, 424 Mass. 770 (1997) (voluntary intoxication and intent)
Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201 (2001) (provocation and heat of passion standard)
Commonwealth v. LeClair, 445 Mass. 734 (2006) (probative provocation and cooling-off requirement)
Commonwealth v. Andrade, 422 Mass. 236 (1996) (provocation sufficiency for manslaughter instruction)
Commonwealth v. Schnopps, 383 Mass. 178 (1981) (timing of cooling-off period for provocation)
Commonwealth v. Walden, 380 Mass. 724 (1980) (sudden combat doctrine and instruction)
Commonwealth v. Espada, 450 Mass. 687 (2008) (evidence for sudden combat instruction)
Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 442 Mass. 826 (2004) (sudden combat standard)
Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. 94 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment/public-trial closure analysis)
Presley v. Georgia, 130 S. Ct. 721 (2010) (public trial right in jury selection)
Commonwealth v. Buckman, 461 Mass. 24 (2011) (new-trial denial standards after remand)