Commonwealth v. Norris
462 Mass. 131
| Mass. | 2012Background
- Norris and Facey were convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses for the shooting death of Bernard Johnson in a Somerville parking lot, under theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty.
- Facey challenges the sufficiency of evidence to prove him as a joint venturer in murder; Norris challenges lack of a 'defense of another' instruction and a license defense issue for possession of a firearm.
- At trial, Johnson was attacked over a gold chain; Norris fired six times, Johnson died, and Facey is alleged to have aided or facilitated the confrontation.
- DNA and fingerprint evidence linked Johnson to the gunshot wounds; Facey’s DNA was found on one gun, and Johnson’s DNA matched the pistol’s backstop; Norris and Facey lacked firearm licenses.
- Norris testified that he acted in self-defense when confronted with Johnson pointing a gun; Facey did not testify.
- The trial occurred in September 2008; the Superior Court denied Norris’s suppression motion, and the jury found both defendants guilty of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of joint venture evidence | Facey was present with knowledge and agreement to aid; no shared intent shown. | Evidence shows lack of awareness of Norris’s gun and no joint intent to kill. | Sufficiency supported joint venture verdict; reasonable inference of shared intent. |
| Defense of another instruction — error and ineffective assistance | Counsel strategically did not pursue; evidence could support instruction. | Failure to request or sua sponte instruction violated rights; defense would have benefited. | No ineffective assistance; no sua sponte duty to give absent request; record supports strategic choices. |
| License defense instruction for possession of firearm | Norris’s possession conviction required defense of license to carry. | Licensure is an affirmative defense, not an element; Commonwealth must prove lack of license if defendant presents license evidence. | License is affirmative defense; no instruction required absent evidence of license. |
| G. L. c. 278, § 33E relief and DNA calculation errors | Weight and potential miscalculation of DNA statistics could suggest reduced culpability or new trial. | Minor DNA calculation error should not yield new trial or reduced verdicts. | No new trial or reduction; errors did not create substantial risk of miscarriage. |
| Impact of DNA and firearm evidence on joint venture theory | DNA on gun and bullets supports involvement and intent to kill. | DNA results are uncertain and do not conclusively prove joint intent. | Evidence sufficient to support verdicts; DNA corroborates, not undermines. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Zanetti, 454 Mass. 449 (2009) (defines joint venture elements and shared intent in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Green, 420 Mass. 771 (1995) (joint venture standard and knowledge of accomplice)
- Commonwealth v. Deane, 458 Mass. 43 (2010) (intent required for deliberate premeditation murder standard)
- Commonwealth v. Pov Hour, 446 Mass. 35 (2006) (malice required for extreme atrocity or cruelty to support murder)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 425 Mass. 609 (1997) (malice standards and post-incident conduct evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Souza, 428 Mass. 478 (1998) (relevance of defense instructions and trial strategy)
- Commonwealth v. Roberts, 407 Mass. 731 (1990) (lesser included offense instruction and defense counsel agreement)
- Commonwealth v. Gould, 413 Mass. 707 (1992) (instruction on lesser included offenses when supported by evidence)