HOLYOKE, Mass. — (AmmoLand.com) — A tragic case involving a man who used his firearm in self-defense is getting some closure. Massachusetts court says “self-defense” an allowable defense in the accidental killing of a bystander.
The Scenario
Commonwealth v. Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez revolves around a January 28, 2023, use of a firearm in self-defense. Court documents state Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez was threatened by aggressor Irving Sanchez. Santana-Rodriguez alleged that Sanchez brandished a firearm. Responding to the threats, Santana-Rodriguez deployed his firearm and in doing so mortally wounded an innocent bystander. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Santana-Rodriguez could claim “self-defense to justify the death of an unintended victim” and that “involuntary manslaughter” could be considered by the court if the Commonwealth could prove his actions were wanton or reckless.
The Charges and Opinion
Santa-Rodriguez was initially charged and convicted with first-degree murder. His case made it up to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on appeal. On October 14, the court ordered the case to be remanded back to the superior court “for further proceedings,” taking into consideration their opinion:
We conclude that a defendant’s lawful self-defense against an assailant may excuse the killing of an unintended victim, such as an innocent bystander. This is not, however, a defense to wanton or reckless conduct. A defendant may therefore be held criminally liable for the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter if the Commonwealth 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.
Monumental
Santa-Rodriguez was represented by Attorneys Daniel Hagan, Daniel D. Kelly, and Kyle J. DeSousa. Hagan, who also serves on the Board of Directors of Gun Owners Action League — the Massachusetts NRA state affiliate organization — said the decision represents a “sea change” in self-defense law in the Commonwealth.
“For the first time in 250 years of Commonwealth history, the Court has made clear that those who act lawfully to defend their own lives are not to be treated as murderers for a tragic accident beyond their control,” Hagan said.
This case is revolutionary. Throughout the history of Massachusetts law, never have they had to make a decision based on these types of circumstances. A license to carry holder engaged in lawful self-defense which resulted in the death of an innocent bystander has never come before the court.
A First for License to Carry Holders
Modern regulations on the carry of firearms in the Commonwealth date back to 1906. “An Act to Regulate by License the Carrying of Concealed Weapons, ch. 172, §§ 1-2, 1906 Mass. Acts 150” was enacted five years before New York’s infamous permitting law — the Sullivan Act. In the over hundred-year history of these regulations in the Commonwealth, this was the first instance of a bystander being killed accidentally during a lawful act of self-defense coming before the court.
The question of raising self-defense in this scenario Hagen recently discussed on an episode of the GOAL Podcast.
“It’s never been established in Massachusetts whether I can even get up as your lawyer and raise that as a defense, …” Hagen said. “He was being attacked, and when he shot, he missed and killed a third person, an innocent party … (in) Massachusetts, if you simply miss, what is the result of that? I mean, are you still a murderer? Is it manslaughter? So can you even argue self-defense? Can you even argue it when you didn’t kill the person attacking you?”
Setting Precedent
“This is a groundbreaking recognition of the right of self-preservation,” Hagan said. “Gun owners and citizens across Massachusetts can take comfort knowing that if they are ever forced to defend themselves lawfully, they will not be treated as criminals for an unforeseeable tragedy.”
“Thanks to the brilliant work of Attorney Dan Hagan and his legal team, self-defense law in Massachusetts looks very different today than it did yesterday,” Mike Harris, director of public policy for Gun Owners’ Action League, told AmmoLand News. “Unfortunately, even after Bruen, rulings like this by Massachusetts courts are rare. It’s refreshing, and dare I say encouraging, to see the SJC apply precedent and the doctrine of transferred intent without the usual political trickery. In this case, the intent: self-defense, actually followed the bullet and the court actually followed the law.”
The ruling is precedential and meaningful for all law-abiding Massachusetts license to carry holders who may find themselves similarly situated. How the superior court handles this case is yet to be known, but at least they now have a roadmap to follow.
DOJ Claims the NFA Only Burdens “Nonessential Firearm Accessories” In Suppressor Case
Dhillon Defends Bondi Against Gun Rights Group’s Demand for Firing Her
About John Petrolino
John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .
from https://ift.tt/JIjWiDY
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment