Commonwealth v. Morris, 465 Mass. 733

Early morning altercation (Nov. 27, 2005) on Portland Street: defendant Joseph Mons stabbed Kevin Burns; Burns hospitalized; Mons arrested eight months later.
Prosecution charged aggravated assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon; jury convicted Mons of the lesser included offense (assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon).
Witnesses testified Mons fled immediately after the stabbing, got into Monge’s car, and left; a bystander recorded the vehicle plate number.
Mons testified he acted in self-defense, armed with a small folding knife because he felt surprised, outnumbered, and afraid.
At charge conference prosecutor requested a consciousness-of-guilt (flight) instruction; defense objected that flight was explained by fear; judge gave the standard Toney-based instruction over objection.
Mons appealed, arguing the flight instruction was improper where self-defense and fear explained flight; the Appeals Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a consciousness-of-guilt instruction was proper when defendant asserts self-defense and claims flight resulted from fear	Commonwealth: flight was probative of consciousness of guilt and the standard instruction (Toney) was appropriate	Mons: giving the instruction unduly emphasizes alternative, culpable motives for flight and undermines self-defense; such an instruction should not be given absent a defendant’s request	Court: Instruction was proper; judge acted within discretion because flight evidence was relevant and the instruction balanced and cautionary; no error
Whether the instruction prejudiced the defendant such that reversal is required	Commonwealth: standard instruction includes caveats (cannot convict on flight alone) and preserves fairness	Mons: instruction risks channeling jury toward guilt despite self-defense claim	Court: instruction complied with Toney safeguards (warned jurors not required to infer guilt, noted innocent reasons for flight, and prohibited conviction based on this evidence alone); no reversible error; affirmed

Commonwealth v. Toney, 385 Mass. 575 (articulates standards for consciousness-of-guilt instruction)
Commonwealth v. Stuckich, 450 Mass. 449 (flight and similar acts can support inference of consciousness of guilt)
Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418 (discusses propriety and wording of consciousness-of-guilt instruction)
Commonwealth v. Prater, 431 Mass. 86 (judge’s discretion to instruct on consciousness of guilt; multiple explanations for flight go to jury)
Commonwealth v. Carrion, 407 Mass. 263 (flight as classic evidence of consciousness of guilt)
Commonwealth v. Brousseau, 421 Mass. 647 (trial judge’s discretion on such instructions)
Commonwealth v. Harmon, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 456 (cautions against wording that endorses inferences)
Commonwealth v. Simmons, 419 Mass. 426 (defense may have tactical reasons to oppose consciousness-of-guilt instruction)
Commonwealth v. Knap, 412 Mass. 712 (instruction in accordance with Toney does not improperly bias jury)