Supreme Judicial Court holds murder charges cannot be based on accidental killing of bystander in course of legitimate acts of self-defense

Massachusetts courts have recognized self-defense as a defense to homicide as far back as the trial following the Boston Massacre in 1770, where John Adams successfully defended all but one of a group of British soldiers who had fired into a crowd of protesters that had thrown objects at them. In all that time, however, Massachusetts courts had never definitively answered the question of whether the defense applies where in the process of defending oneself, a defendant kills an innocent bystander.   

That changed on Tuesday, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed the question in its decision in Commonwealth v. Santana-Rodriguez. The defendant in the case, Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez, was at a salon with his girlfriend when her former boyfriend confronted him. Revealing a gun in his waistband, the ex-boyfriend stated, “You know what’s about to happen.” Believing “it was him or [the ex-boyfriend],” the defendant drew a gun and fired at the ex-boyfriend, but instead hit Trung Tran, a salon employee, who was killed.  

In its opinion, the Court concluded that Santana-Rodriguez and similarly situated defendants acting in lawful self-defense cannot be guilty of first- or second-degree murder, but can still be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the prosecution proves that a defendant’s exercise of self-defense “was wanton or reckless so as to create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to an unintended victim.” In coming to this conclusion, the Court applied the concept of transferred intent to the self-defense context. Transferred intent is a theory of criminal liability that allows a defendant who attempts to kill one person, but by mistake or accident kills another, to still be criminally liable for the killing because their “felonious intent is transferred from the intended victim to the unintended victim.” In the self-defense context, when a defendant uses force to defend against an aggressor, but by mistake or accident harms someone other than the aggressor, the justifiability of the defendant’s use of force in self-defense carries over, or “transfers.” As stated in the opinion, the “intent follows the bullet.” 

In addition to answering the question of whether transferred intent self-defense could provide a defense to first- and second-degree murder, which it answered “yes,” the Court also considered to what extent such conduct would be protected. The Commonwealth, while conceding that Santana-Rodriguez would be entitled to be acquitted of first-degree murder for the killing of an innocent bystander in lawful self-defense, argued the defendant should be found guilty of second-degree murder if a jury found that he “failed to exercise ordinary care and caution in responding to the threat.” 

The Court rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that self-defense intent should only transfer when a defendant exercises “ordinary care and caution,” and also rejected the defendant’s primary argument calling to adopt Pennsylvania’s approach, where transferred intent self-defense is a complete defense to criminal liability. Instead, the Court took the middle ground approach followed by a majority of states, which is that the killing of an innocent bystander while acting in self-defense is not murder but may be involuntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that (1) self-defense is not all-or-nothing, (2) adopting a middle ground approach achieves the right balance between an individual’s right to use deadly force in self-defense and the societal interest of protecting bystanders from being recklessly injured, and (3) the facts of this case fit more within the scope of involuntary manslaughter, which requires proof of a “disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton or reckless conduct,” rather than second-degree murder, which requires an intent to kill, cause grievous bodily harm, or do an act which is reasonably known to create a strong likelihood of death. 

While the Court’s approach was measured, it is still good news for criminal defendants in Massachusetts. The opinion expands the principle that a person’s lawful actions to preserve their own life should not form the basis of first- or second-degree murder charges.  

If you have been charged with a crime, contact our criminal defense attorneys at (617) 742-6020.