Commonwealth v. Nee
83 Mass. App. Ct. 441
| Mass. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Defendant was convicted of affray, a common-law crime, after a public fight in a park following a restaurant incident in Boston.
- Officer Monaco, the alleged victim, was punched by a youth in a white sweatshirt, triggering a larger group to converge and threaten public peace.
- Pitt observed the defendant join the group and strike Monaco as part of surrounding assaults; Pitt tackled and restrained the defendant until police arrived.
- The group, numbering roughly ten to fifteen, chased Monaco toward a public park where the attack continued and injuries included a broken nose.
- Monaco and others were legally present in the park; the defendant and others attacked them, creating public fear and disturbance.
- The jury acquitted the defendant of related offenses and the court imposed a suspended sentence with probation for affray.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove affray | Pitt's testimony shows the defendant fought with others, causing public terror. | Identity and the 'fighting' element are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient; defendant engaged in affray with others. |
| Error in jury instructions omitting 'lawfully there' | Omission of 'lawfully there' does not undermine proper conviction. | Omitting 'lawfully there' from elements is error and prejudicial. | Omission was error but no substantial risk of miscarriage of justice given evidence of lawful presence. |
| Prosecutor's closing argument | Closing properly emphasized defendant's role in affray and feared public harm. | Closing was inflammatory and improperly highlighted injuries. | No error; closing argument within proper bounds when viewed with whole record. |
| Unconstitutional vagueness as applied | Affray is vague and fails to distinguish self-defense from aggression. | The statute lacks precision in prohibiting 'fighting together.' | No substantial risk of vagueness; reasonable person would understand the conduct as affray. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (reliance on Latimore for favorable-view standard of review)
- Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 359 Mass. 491 (Mass. 1971) (affray defined with lawfulness overlay)
- Commonwealth v. Lao, 443 Mass. 770 (Mass. 2005) (evidence can support terror inference)
- Commonwealth v. Shea, 398 Mass. 264 (Mass. 1986) (evidence sufficiency and trial-not-contested instruction of elements)
- Commonwealth v. Mountry, 463 Mass. 80 (Mass. 2012) (substantial-risk standard for trial error)
- Commonwealth v. Redmond, 53 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2001) (standard for reviewing instructional error)
- Commonwealth v. Hendricks, 452 Mass. 97 (Mass. 2008) (vagueness framework for affray)
- Commonwealth v. Miozza, 67 Mass. App. Ct. 567 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (vagueness considerations for affray)
- Commonwealth v. Oakes, 407 Mass. 92 (Mass. 1990) (framework for substantial risk of miscarriage of justice)
- Commonwealth v. Rosa, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 622 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (affray elements and public-place analysis)