Commonwealth v. Magadini, 52 N.E.3d 1041

Background

Defendant David Magadini, a long-term homeless Great Barrington resident, was convicted by jury of seven counts of criminal trespass based on entries to three private buildings for which he had active no-trespass orders (February–June 2014).
Six incidents (Feb–Apr) involved seeking warmth in common areas or lying near heaters during cold hours; the seventh (June 10) involved entering an ice-cream shop and using the bathroom and refusing to leave.
At trial Magadini sought a jury instruction on the common-law necessity defense (claiming shelter from clear and imminent danger of cold); the judge denied the instruction, concluding lawful alternatives existed (hotels, police station, shelters).
The judge also limited certain cross-examination questions bearing on bias and on whether officers offered transportation to shelters; prosecutor misstated a fact in closing; defendant moved for required finding of not guilty on the April 8 charge and was denied.
On appeal the Supreme Judicial Court held the judge erred in denying the necessity instruction for the six cold-weather incidents (prejudicial), vacated those convictions and remanded for new trial; it affirmed the June 10 conviction and denial of the April 8 required-finding motion.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Magadini's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to jury instruction on necessity for trespass charges	Defendant had lawful alternatives (motels, police station, shelters); he failed to show these were unavailable or futile	Weather created a clear and imminent danger and he presented some evidence that lawful alternatives were unavailable or futile locally	Court: For six Feb–Apr incidents, defendant met foundational requirements; denial of instruction was error and prejudicial — convictions vacated and remanded. For June 10 incident, defendant failed to show clear and imminent danger — conviction affirmed.
Admissibility of cross-examination on officers offering transportation and witness bias	Such questions were irrelevant or speculative	Questions about whether officers offered shelter transport and witnesses’ bias toward homeless persons were probative of necessity and credibility	Court: Questions were relevant to necessity and bias; trial court erred in excluding some lines of inquiry (issues likely to recur at retrial).
Prosecutor misstatement in closing about shelter timing	Misstatement was inadvertent and not a basis for relief here	Misstatement misstated defendant’s testimony (said he stayed at shelter recently when it was 2007) and prejudiced necessity defense	Court: Noted the misstatement but declined relief given vacatur of affected convictions and expectation it won’t recur at retrial.
Motion for required finding of not guilty for April 8 entry to Barrington House (public common area)	No special loitering element required; defendant had been lawfully barred so mere presence sufficed after forbidden	Presence in publicly accessible common area during business hours cannot support trespass conviction absent loitering or lingering	Court: Denial of required finding was correct; no extra element of loitering required where no-trespass order had revoked implied license.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Kendall, 451 Mass. 10 (addresses foundational proof required for necessity instruction)
Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581 (formulation of common-law necessity defense)
Commonwealth v. Iglesia, 403 Mass. 132 (burden on Commonwealth after foundational showing of necessity)
Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393 (treating defendant testimony as true for sufficiency to obtain instruction)
Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 410 Mass. 726 (weighing competing harms for necessity)
Commonwealth v. Lapage, 435 Mass. 480 (ordering new trial when judge omits instruction on principal defense)
Commonwealth v. Richardson, 313 Mass. 632 (implied license to use common areas; license revocable by those with lawful control)