NEW ENGLAND LAW REVIEW MASSACHUSETTS CRIMINAL DIGEST

Commonwealth v. Lennon, 463 Mass. 520 (2012)

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR: MATTHEW CAMPBELL I. Procedural History

A jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Lennon, of premeditated murder in the Massachusetts Superior Court.1 Mr. Lennon filed a direct appeal on March 24, 2009, but that appeal was stayed to allow Mr. Lennon to file a motion for new trial.2 The motion for a new trial alleged that a closure of the courtroom during jury selection violated Mr. Lennons right to a public trial under the Sixth Amendment.3 This motion was denied without a hearingbased on the conclusion that Mr. Lennon failed to meet his burden of showing that there was a general or even a partial closure of the courtroom.4 Mr. Lennons appeal of his conviction was consolidated with an appeal of the denial of his new trial motion.5 On December 22, 2011, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments and then remanded the case to obtain specific findings regarding Mr. Lennons Sixth Amendment claims.6 The trial judges findings of fact were filed with the SJC on June 22, 2012.7 II. Facts At about 4 p.m. on June 19, 2006, Mr. Lennon was in a park near Faneuil Hall with approximately five other people.8 The victim was seated on a bench in close proximity to Mr. Lennon.9 Suddenly, witnesses heard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Commonwealth v. Lennon, 463 Mass. 520, 520 (2012). Id. at 521 n.1. Id. at 525. Id. at 521 n.1, 527-528. Id. at 521 n.1. Id. at 521 n.1, 525-526. Commonwealth v. Lennon, supra at 521 n.1. Id. at 521. Id.

81

82

New Eng. L. Rev. Mass. Crim. Dig.

v. 47 | 81

yelling and observed people fleeing the areaexcept the defendant [Mr. Lennon] and the victim.10 Mr. Lennon pulled the victim over the back of the bench, threw the victim to the ground, and yelled at the victim; Mr. Lennon then fatally stabbed the victim in the back and fled the scene.11 The victim was unarmed and had neither struck nor threatened Mr. Lennon.12 Mr. Lennon proceeded to a homeless shelter where he was staying and changed his clothes.13 He then returned to the park, where he was identified by witnesses and arrested by police.14 Police officers collected samples of reddish-brown stains from Mr. Lennons hands and from his shirt, which was retrieved from the shelter.15 These items were later tested and matched to the victims DNA.16 At approximately 8 p.m., Mr. Lennon was taken to an interview room where he claimed that he had purchased a pint of vodka and a bottle of Ruby Red, which he drank with his girlfriend.17 Mr. Lennon stated that he later went to purchase more vodka and then went to the park to look for his girlfriend.18 Mr. Lennon claimed that he was arrested shortly after he arrived at the park.19 III. Issues Presented 1. Whether the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury that evidence of voluntary intoxication could be considered regarding the question of his capacity to premeditate deliberately. 2. Whether the judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury that a verdict of voluntary manslaughter could be returned based on evidence of reasonable provocation or mutual combat. 3. Whether the judge erred in denying Mr. Lennons motion for a new trial based on his claim that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated by the closure of the courtroom during jury selection. IV. Holdings and Reasoning 1. The SJC held that the trial judge properly denied Mr. Lennons request to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication.20 A jury instruction

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Id. Id. Id. Commonwealth v. Lennon, supra at 521. Id. at 521-522. Id. at 522. Id. Id. Id. Commonwealth v. Lennon, supra at 522. Id. at 523.

2013

Commonwealth v. Lennon

83

on voluntary intoxication is required only if there is evidence of debilitating intoxication that could support a reasonable doubt as to the defendants ability to form the requisite criminal intent.21 The Court found that there was no evidence that Mr. Lennons condition approached the level of debilitating intoxication.22 On the contrary, witnesses who observed Mr. Lennon at the time of the stabbing testified that he had no difficulty walking, running, speaking, or understanding.23 2. The SJC found that the trial judge correctly denied Mr. Lennons request to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on reasonable provocation or mutual combat.24 A defendant is entitled to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on reasonable provocation if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him, there is evidence of provocation deemed adequate in law to cause the accused to lose his selfcontrol in the heat of passion, and if the killing followed the provocation before sufficient time had elapsed for the accuseds temper to cool.25 To warrant an instruction on sudden combat, there must be evidence that creates a reasonable doubt that the victim presented a threat of serious harm to the defendant.26 The Court found that the attack was completely unprovoked, and therefore there was nothing that would have caused a reasonable person to lose self-control.27 In addition, there was no evidence that the victim either struck or attacked Mr. Lennon, and in no way did the victim present any serious harm to Mr. Lennon.28 3. The SJC held that the trial judge properly denied Mr. Lennons motion for a new trial because the evidence did not support the claim that the courtroom was closed either to the public generally or to his sisters specifically.29 The Court found that the trial judge did not deny entry or direct anyone to leave the courtroom during the jury selection process.30 The courtroom door was not locked and there was no sign prohibiting entry.31 Thus, [n]o courtroom closure occurred at any time during jury selection.32 The Court also found that neither of Mr. Lennons two sisters
Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 449 Mass. 747, 768 (2007). Id. at 523. 23 Id. 24 Id. at 524-525. 25 Commonwealth v. Lennon, supra at 524, quoting Commonwealth v. Andrade, 422 Mass. 236, 237 (1996).
22 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21

Id. at 525. Id. at 524-525. Id. at 525. Id. at 527-528. Id. at 526. Commonwealth v. Lennon, supra at 526. Id.

84

New Eng. L. Rev. Mass. Crim. Dig.

v. 47 | 81

could have been excluded because neither one was physically present during jury selection.33 Finally, the Court held that the trial judges finding that jury selection concluded before the luncheon recess was not erroneous.34 More specifically, the Court found that a court reporters notation indicating that court recessed at 4:04 p.m. on one of the jury selection days was mistaken.35 This inaccuracy could be explained in one of two ways: (1) the recording machine was not turned off until later in the day or (2) the time stamp device was malfunctioning.36

33 34 35 36

Id. Id. at 527. Id. Id. at 528.