The defendant, David K. Sheppard, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and unarmed robbery. We learn from a special verdict that the finding of involuntary manslaughter was based on assault and battery and not wаnton or reckless conduct. The defendant appealed, and we transferred the case here on our own motion.
The defendant challenges his convictions on several grounds. He argues thаt (1) since the jury explicitly rejected the wanton or reckless theory of involuntary manslaughter, his conviction must be reversed; (2) there was no evidence warranting the inference that the defendant toоk property by “force and violence” and therefore the unarmed robbery conviction must be reduced to larceny; and (3) a portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument improperly lеd the jury to believe the Commonwealth’s principal witness testified of his own will, and therefore a new trial must be granted. We reject each of the defendant’s arguments and affirm the convictions.
From the evidence the jury could have found the following facts. On June 16, 1986, Shane Hamilton approached the defendant and tried to sell him some T-shirts. The defendant told him he would not pay for them. The defendant then took аbout fifteen of the shirts from the pile and pushed Hamilton back, making him move off balance. The defendant refused to pay for the shirts and walked away. The defendant admitted taking the T-shirts, but denied that he pushed Hаmilton in any way.
Later that evening, Hamilton and his friend, Mark Larrier, encountered the defendant wearing one of the stolen T-shirts. A confrontation occurred in the course of which the defendant hit Larrier in the face, causing him to fall backward and hit his head. Larrier died four days later as a result of a hemorrhage caused by a severe fracture to the skull.
1. Involuntary manslaughter. The defendant argues that he cannot be convicted of involuntary manslaughter unless the Commonwealth proves “wanton or reckless” conduct on his part. Conversely, the Commonwealth relies on our long-standing rule that an assault and battery causing a deаth is sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
*776
Involuntary manslaughter is “an unlawful homicide, unintentionally caused (1) in the commission of an unlawful act, malum in se, not amounting to a felony nor likely to еndanger life ... or (2) by an act which constitutes such a disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton or reckless conduct” (citations omitted).
Commonwealth
v.
Campbell,
The defendant mistakenly contends that the Commonwealth’s reliance on the “battery causing a death” theory of involuntary manslaughter as a basis for his conviction is invalid because of our decision in
Commonwealth v. Matchett,
Here the judge instructed, “you [must] find that the Commonwealth ha[s] proved [that] the defendant punched the victim. Further, there would have to be proof . . . this punching, was harmful. A harmful battery oсcurs when the touching is done with such violence that harm is likely to result.” Given this instruction, the fact that the defendant was six feet tall and weighed 185 pounds while the victim was only five feet seven inches tall and weighed 125 pounds, the fact that the punch was of sufficient force to cause the victim’s head to hit the street and cause a severe skull fracture and brain hemorrhage, and the evidence that the defendant called the blow a “knockout punch,” the jury’s finding of an intentional battery done “with such violence that harm [was] likely to result” was a sufficient basis to support the manslaughter conviction.
2.
Unarmed robbery.
The defendant was charged with unarmed robbery in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 19
(b)
(1986 ed.).
2
At the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence, the defendant moved for a required finding of not guilty, arguing that there was no evidence that the taking was accomрlished by force. The judge denied the motion. “In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict in a criminal case, we determine whether the evidence offered by the Commonwealth, together with reasonable inferences therefrom, when viewed in its light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to persuade a rational jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence
*778
of every element of the crime charged.”
Commonwealth
v.
Campbell,
Of course, “[t]he exertion of force, actual or constructive, remains the principal distinguishing characteristic” between a robbery and the underlying larceny.
Commonwealth
v.
Jones,
The defendant argues that, because the alleged pushing must have followеd the taking, there is no causal connection between the defendant’s use of violence and his acquisition of Hamilton’s property. Even if the jury believed that the defendant pushed Hamilton immediately after the defendant actually took the shirts, the jury were free to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant used the force to facilitate the larceny. See
Commonwealth
v.
Rajotte,
*779 3. The prosecutor’s closing argument. The defendant objected to the prosecutor’s argument that its principal witness, Hаmilton, “stayed with the case” and had “been through the wringer.” 4 The defendant claims that this argument led the jury to believe erroneously that Hamilton was testifying voluntarily when in fact every prosecution witness testifies under сompulsion of process of the Commonwealth. 5 The judge denied the defendant’s motion for a mistrial and also refused to give a curative instruction. However, the judge did instruct the jury that they were “the sole judgеs” of credibility and that arguments by counsel are not evidence.
The prosecutor was responding to the defendant’s attack on Hamilton’s credibility by suggesting to the jury the reason there was so much previоus testimony. See note 4,
supra.
The prosecutor did not state that Hamilton could have dropped the complaint. Contrast
Commonwealth
v.
Mosby,
Judgments affirmed.
Notes
The defendant also argues that, from our decision in
Commonwealth
v.
Welansky,
General Laws c. 265, § 19 (b), provides: “Whoever, not being armed with a dangerous weapon, by force and violence, or by assault and putting in fear, robs, steals or takes from the person of anоther, or from his immediate control, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years.”
General Laws c. 277, § 39 (1986 еd.), defines “[r]obbery” as “the taking and carrying away of personal property of another from his person and against his will, by force and violence, or by assault and putting in fear, with the intent to steal.”
The judge instruсted the jury: “There has to be a causal connection between the defendant’s alleged acts of force and violence and his obtaining of [Hamilton’s] property. In other words, the use of such fоrce and violence must be the cause of the defendant’s obtaining [Hamilton’s] property and [Hamilton] must be aware of the application of such force.”
In his closing argument the prosecutor argued the credibility of Shane Hamilton, the Commonwealth’s principal witness, by telling the jury: “He’s a hard working, good kid and I suggest to you that you can put your confidence and faith in his testimony. He has put his faith in the system. You hеard about him giving a tape recorded statement to the police. He testified in Dorchester Court to the manslaughter. He testified in the Grand Jury to the manslaughter. He testified in Roxbury Court to the robbery. He testifiеd before the Grand Jury in the robbery. He’s been through the wringer. . . . You saw him on cross examination here, I suggest a grueling cross examination. There was reference to his past testimony. There were five sets of past statements or testimony that the defense had. That’s because he stayed with the case. He stayed within the system.”
See Mass. R. Crim. P. 17 (e),