Commonwealth v. Wallace, 460 Mass. 118

Background

In 2005 a jury convicted Isaac Wallace of first‑degree murder on deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, and of carrying a firearm without a license.
The trial court denied Wallace’s motion for a new trial without an evidentiary hearing; appellate counsel represented him on appeal.
The August 1, 2002 shooting occurred in Dorchester; the defendant and others were in a van; the victim was shot multiple times as he approached the van and showed surrender by pulling up his shirt.
Hughes, a van occupant, later wiped the van per Reid’s instruction; Wallace was identified as the shooter by Reid and Hughes, with corroboration from Kirkland’s prior statements and Nixon’s testimony about related incidents.
Ballistics showed three spent bullets from the victim’s body came from the same weapon, which was not recovered; several witnesses testified inconsistently about who fired.
Wallace did not testify; defense argued that Reid was the shooter and that witnesses were untrustworthy; the case included additional related charges placed on file or on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance under §33E standard	Wallace claims trial counsel failed to raise or develop key defenses and evidence.	Counsel performance was deficient and prejudicial under §33E's miscarriage standard.	No reversible error; standards require substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice.
Gang affiliation evidence impact	Prosecution’s reference to gang culture prejudiced the defendant.	Trial counsel failed to limit prejudicial impact and jurors should be shielded.	No error; no gang evidence linked Wallace; isolated remark about the victim’s associates was insufficient to create prejudice.
Exculpatory statement of Kirkland and self‑defense	Failure to cross‑examine Kirkland’s October 2002 statement deprived Wallace of defense evidence.	The statement would support self‑defense/defense of another if properly used.	No error; Kirkland’s statement was speculative and did not provide a basis for a self‑defense instruction.
Prosecutor’s closing argument	Prosecutor misstated evidence by tying Wallace to wiping the van.	Counsel should have objected to the misstatement.	Fair inference that Wallace participated; no reversible error.
Jury instructions on self‑defense/defense of another/voluntary manslaughter	Instructions were warranted by evidence suggesting threat or force by the victim.	Trial court should have given self‑defense and related instructions.	No error; no overt act by victim or admissible threat supported these instructions.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Frank, 433 Mass. 185 (Mass. 2001) (use §33E miscarriage standard for murder convictions)
Commonwealth v. Fisher, 433 Mass. 340 (Mass. 2001) (self‑defense instruction requires reasonable belief of imminent danger)
Commonwealth v. Glass, 401 Mass. 799 (Mass. 1988) (self‑defense requires overt act and retreat options)
Commonwealth v. Tu Trinh, 458 Mass. 776 (Mass. 2011) (voluntary manslaughter instruction not warranted without provocation)
Commonwealth v. Satterfield, 373 Mass. 109 (Mass. 1977) (admissibility of alternative defenses where not pivotal to defense theory)
Commonwealth v. Hinds, 457 Mass. 83 (Mass. 2010) (speculation about weapon does not support self‑defense)
Commonwealth v. Colon, 449 Mass. 207 (Mass. 2007) (closing arguments must be grounded in evidence)
Commonwealth v. Ellis, 373 Mass. 1 (Mass. 1977) (best practice is redaction of manner of death; not reversible here)
Commonwealth v. West, 312 Mass. 438 (Mass. 1942) (credibility of prior inconsistent statements)
Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393 (Mass. 1998) (self‑defense requires an overt act by the victim and retreat options)