965 N.E.2d 201
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant convicted of two counts of lesser-included armed assault with intent to kill, two counts of second-branch mayhem, and two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
- Moved for new trial asserting ineffective assistance; denial affirmed on appeal.
- Appeal consolidated with direct appeal raising duplicative convictions, admissibility of medical testimony, and several jury-instruction challenges.
- February 20, 2006: defendant attacked Perrier and DeJesus in cousin’s apartment with a knife, causing extensive injuries.
- DeJesus survived with serious facial and neck injuries; Perrier sustained gouges and multiple stab wounds; a child witnessed alarms.
- Police responded around 7:00 p.m.; victims hospitalized; recording of defendant’s police interview admitted at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicative convictions | DeJesus and Ferrier convictions duplicative of mayhem based on same acts | Mayhem and dangerous-weapon assault may be grounded on separate acts with no duplication | No reversible error; separate acts support both offenses |
| Medical testimony | Medical testimony about artery injury and stroke admissible without expert | Requires qualified expert; admission risks miscarriage of justice | No prejudice; testimony unrelated to live issue; no miscarriage |
| Jury instructions - self-defense | Proportionality element should be explicitly expanded per Kendrick | Need for broader proportionality instruction | No reversible error; instructions sufficiently conveyed self-defense elements |
| Jury instructions - other issues | Instructions on prior inconsistent statements, disbelief of witnesses, first aggressor misapplied | Errors in those areas prejudicial | No reversible error; instructions adequately guided jury on these issues |
| Motion for new trial - ineffective assistance | Counsel’s cross-examination and impeachment decisions prejudicial | Counsel’s strategy reasonable; lack of prep claim insufficient | Judgments affirmed; no serious ineffective-assistance showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. King, 445 Mass. 217 (Mass. 2005) (substantial risk standard for unpreserved error)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 429 Mass. 502 (Mass. 1999) (separate acts required for multiple convictions)
- Commonwealth v. Drew, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 261 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (mayhem defined; disfigurement criteria)
- Commonwealth v. Kendrick, 351 Mass. 203 (Mass. 1966) (proportionality element in self-defense)
- Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508 (Mass. 1975) (self-defense instructions principles)
- Commonwealth v. DiRusso, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 235 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003) (disbelief of witness and evidentiary inferences)
- Commonwealth v. Adjutant, 443 Mass. 649 (Mass. 2005) (first aggressor concept in instructions)
- Commonwealth v. Caramanica, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 376 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000) (instructional sufficiency standard)
- Commonwealth v. Toney, 385 Mass. 575 (Mass. 1982) (consciousness of guilt evidentiary limits)
- Commonwealth v. Proulx, 61 Mass. App. Ct. 454 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (excessive force evidence and trial impact)
- Commonwealth v. Gabbidon, 398 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1986) (jury verdicts and self-defense burdens)