NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-10476

COMMONWEALTH vs. YAT FUNG NG.

Suffolk. October 13, 2022. - February 8, 2023.

Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Cypher, Kafker, & Wendlandt, JJ.

Homicide. Constitutional Law, Fair trial, Public trial, 

Assistance of counsel, Sentence. Due Process of Law, Fair 

trial, Presence of defendant in courtroom, Sentence. Fair 

Trial. Evidence, Hearsay, Relevancy and materiality, Selfdefense, State of mind, Spontaneous utterance. SelfDefense. Practice, Criminal, Capital case, Fair trial, 

Presence of defendant, Public trial, Hearsay, Assistance of 

counsel, Sentence.

Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court 

Department on August 20, 2004.

The cases were tried before Charles T. Spurlock, J.; and a 

motion for a new trial, filed on October 29, 2014, was heard by 

Maynard M. Kirpalani, J.

James L. Sultan for the defendant.

Ian MacLean, Assistant District Attorney (Lynn S. 

Feigenbaum, Assistant District Attorney, also present) for the 

Commonwealth.

CYPHER, J. The defendant, Yat Fung Ng, was convicted of 

murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate 
2

premeditation after he shot and killed the victim, Karriem 

Brown, outside a bar in Boston.1 Following his conviction in 

2008, the defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the 

possibility of parole pursuant to G. L. c. 265, § 2. The 

defendant filed his initial motion for a new trial in 2014, 

which subsequently was denied. This court consolidated the 

denial of that motion with the defendant's direct appeal from 

his convictions. Following oral argument, and review of the 

defendant's appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E (§ 33E), the 

case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on an unraised 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.2

After the order for remand, but before an evidentiary 

hearing was held, the defendant filed a second motion for a new 

trial. Following an evidentiary hearing, the judge allowed the 

defendant's second motion for a new trial. The Commonwealth 

appealed, and this court reversed the allowance of the motion 

for a new trial, concluding that trial counsel in fact was not 

1 The defendant also was convicted of carrying a firearm 

without a license in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a).

2 More specifically, this court sought an evidentiary 

hearing for review of trial counsel's "decision to forgo a jury 

instruction on voluntary manslaughter, her focus on the question 

of self-defense, and her decision not to object to certain of 

the jury instructions on the use of deadly force in selfdefense."
3

ineffective. See Commonwealth v. Yat Fung Ng, 489 Mass. 242 

(2022).

We now review the defendant's direct appeal of his 

underlying convictions, pursuant to § 33E, as well as his appeal 

from the denial of his initial motion for a new trial. The 

defendant raises seven issues: (1) whether the defendant's 

exclusion from all substantive sidebars during the course of the 

trial constitutes structural error warranting automatic 

reversal; (2) whether the trial judge abused his discretion in

excluding the defendant's statement to Omar Sierra shortly after 

the shooting, where the judge determined that the statement 

constituted inadmissible hearsay; (3) whether the trial judge 

abused his discretion in admitting both the defendant's military 

records and expert testimony on the defendant's designation as 

an Army sharpshooter; (4) whether the closure of the court room 

during jury empanelment violated the defendant's constitutional 

right to a public trial; (5) whether trial counsel 

constitutionally was ineffective for failure to advocate for a 

verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree; (6) whether 

sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment without the 

possibility of parole, absent an individualized sentencing 

hearing, constituted cruel or unusual punishment; and (7) 

whether this court should reduce the defendant's conviction to 

guilty of murder in the second degree, pursuant to the powers 
4

afforded under § 33E. For the reasons discussed infra, we 

affirm the defendant's convictions, and we conclude that there 

is no reason to exercise our authority under § 33E either to 

reduce the verdict or to grant the defendant a new trial.

Background. We summarize the facts the jury could have 

found, reserving some details for later discussion. On May 23, 

2004, at approximately 2 A.M., a bar located on Beacon Street in 

the Fenway section of Boston was closing for the night. As the 

bar closed, patrons were being ushered out by the bar's security

staff. The victim was among those patrons who were leaving, 

along with his two friends, Ray Lee and Standly Miranda.

As the patrons were leaving, an altercation ensued between

a group of individuals and Lee and Miranda. At first, the 

altercation was verbal, mere banter about Lee wearing a New York 

Yankees baseball cap. However, the banter quickly turned to 

insults. A woman in one group began to insult Lee on his 

physical appearance, to which Lee responded with insults of his 

own, calling her a "bitch" and a "ho." At this point, the 

altercation became physical by way of pushing and punching. The 

victim was not involved in the initiation of the altercation,

but he joined the fight when he saw Lee and Miranda were 

involved.

During the fight, witnesses described the victim as 

"throwing bodies" around. Someone involved in the fight tried 
5

to hit the victim; the victim then punched a man and pushed the 

woman who had been trading insults with Lee to the ground. The 

woman exclaimed that she was going to call police; in response, 

the victim grabbed the woman's purse and threw it onto the 

median in the middle of Beacon Street. As the fight was nearing 

an end, Lee retrieved a fraternity "step cane" from the trunk of

his car, which was parked nearby, and began twirling it, telling 

members of the other group involved in the fight, "[Y]ou don't 

want any of this." Lee, however, did not use the step cane to 

assault anyone physically during the fight.3 The victim never 

was seen armed with a weapon of any sort before, during, or 

after the initial altercation.

As the initial fight had concluded, and security from the 

bar had dispersed the group of individuals who were fighting 

outside the bar, the defendant, who had witnessed the victim 

push the woman to the ground, "instinctively took his jacket off 

and ran right over to the scene." The defendant confronted the 

victim, Lee, and Miranda, and began to threaten them with a gun. 

More specifically, the defendant told the victim and his 

friends, "You think you're bullet proof, you think you're bullet 

3 Lee's fraternity step cane signified his membership in an 

African-American fraternity. The step cane was shorter than a 

typical walking cane, only the length from the ground to Lee's 

knee, as it was designed to be twirled and used for tricks

during the fraternity's step dances.
6

proof"; "What's up tough guys? You think you're bullet proof? 

I got something for you. I got something for you in my trunk. 

You think you're bullet proof?"4

At this point, Lee and Miranda grabbed the victim and tried 

to bring him back to Lee's nearby parked car, but the victim 

still was "excited" from the earlier altercation. As Lee and 

Miranda brought the victim to Lee's car, the defendant continued 

"baiting" them in a loud, antagonistic manner. As the defendant 

baited the victim and his friends, the defendant repeatedly 

punched his palm.

Lee and Miranda finally were successful in getting the 

victim into Lee's car. Miranda returned to his own car to drive 

home. Lee tried to follow behind Miranda's car, but as Miranda 

drove away, Lee was forced to stop for a group of people who 

were walking in front of Lee's car at the intersection of Beacon 

and Miner Streets, near the bar.

While the car was stopped, the victim opened the 

passenger's side door and exited; he threw his jacket on the 

ground, ripped his shirt open, and began walking toward the 

front of the bar. The victim was yelling angrily at the 

defendant, asking why the defendant was threatening him. As the 

victim was yelling, the defendant walked to his own car, parked 

4 At trial, Lee testified that what the defendant was 

referring to in the trunk of his car was a firearm.
7

in front of the bar, to which the victim responded, "You better 

run." On hearing this, the defendant picked up his pace toward 

his car, walking purposefully. When a nearby witness told the 

defendant something to the effect of "It's over," the defendant 

responded with either "It's not over for me" or "I have 

business."

When the defendant arrived at his car, he initially 

searched through the driver's side door but then made his way to 

the trunk and emerged with a gun.5 The defendant turned to the 

defendant, raised the gun, and pointed it at the victim, saying,

"Yeah, you want this? You want this?" The victim responded, 

"What are you gonna do, shoot me? Go ahead, shoot me," as well 

as "Go ahead, do it. Do it." At this point, the defendant and 

the victim were at least from ten to twenty feet away from each 

other, and they had stopped advancing toward each other.6

On hearing the victim's statements goading the defendant to 

shoot him, the defendant fired at the victim, hitting him in the 

5 The gun was similar in nature to a handgun.

6 The description of the movements leading up to the 

shooting differed from witness to witness. Specifically, there 

were differences regarding the distance between the defendant 

and victim at the time the defendant fired the fatal shot; 

whether the victim had continued to advance toward the 

defendant; and whether the victim had been retreating. We 

summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, however, thus resolving these factual 

inconsistences in the prosecution's favor. See Commonwealth v. 

Duke, 489 Mass. 649, 651 (2022).
8

forehead.7 The victim immediately fell backward onto the 

pavement.8 The defendant then got into his car and fled the 

scene. Seeing that the victim had been shot, Lee got into his 

car as well and sped after the defendant. Lee was unable to 

keep pace with the defendant but did manage to take note of the 

defendant's vehicle information, including his vehicle's

registration number.

The defendant's vehicle information was broadcast to Boston

police; he was stopped by police in nearby Chelsea, was brought 

back to the scene of the crime, and was arrested after being 

identified by witnesses as the shooter.

Discussion. 1. Exclusion from sidebar conferences. At 

trial, the defendant was excluded from all substantive sidebar 

conferences, despite his attorney's requests that he be present

and subsequent objections on multiple occasions to the judge's 

decision to exclude him. The defendant argues that his absence 

from all substantive sidebars at trial violated his 

constitutional and procedural right to be present at all 

7 The evidence at trial was unclear as to how many shots the 

defendant fired, ranging from at least one to no more than 

three.

8 The gunshot wound ultimately proved to be fatal; the 

victim was taken off life support nearly thirty days after the 

shooting occurred.
9

critical stages of the proceedings, thus constituting a 

structural error warranting reversal.

"Rule 18 (a) [of the Massachusetts Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, 378 Mass. 887 (1979),] provides that criminal 

defendants have the right to be present at all critical stages 

of a court proceeding." Vazquez Diaz v. Commonwealth, 487 Mass. 

336, 343 (2021). "[A] defendant's right 'to be personally

present at every step of the proceedings against him . . . is of 

ancient origin.'" Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Bergstrom, 402 

Mass. 534, 543 (1988). The rule is derived from the 

confrontation and due process clauses of the Sixth and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 

respectively, and art. 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of 

Rights. Vazquez Diaz, supra at 344.

The defendant argues that his right to be present at all 

critical stages of the proceedings was violated because he was 

excluded by the judge from being present at all substantive

sidebar conferences during the trial. In his brief, however, 

the defendant more narrowly focuses only on the sidebar

conferences concerning the state of the evidence of his 

subjective state of mind as it relates to self-defense. Those 

sidebar conferences include the initial argument on the fourth 

day of trial as to whether the testimony of a potential key 

witness, Omar Sierra, constituted inadmissible hearsay; the 
10

argument for and against admissibility of Sierra's testimony

following the voir dire of Sierra; reconsideration of the issue 

later that same day; and the defendant's choice not to call 

Sierra as a witness following the judge's exclusion of certain 

potentially exculpatory hearsay testimony from Sierra.9 Perhaps 

most importantly though, the defendant takes issue with his 

exclusion from a sidebar conference on the seventh day of trial, 

in which the judge remarked that there was "no evidence of any 

subjective fear on [the defendant's] part."

Whether a sidebar is a critical stage requires 

particularized consideration. A defendant's right to be present 

at sidebar is not absolute, as a judge "may perform minor 

administrative formalities" at a sidebar conference outside a 

defendant's presence without violating the defendant's right to 

be present at all critical stages of the proceedings. See 

Commonwealth v. Angiulo, 415 Mass. 502, 530 (1993). There also 

is no absolute right even where the defendant complains of 

exclusion from "substantive sidebars," rather than those that 

involve merely administrative matters. See Commonwealth v. 

Francis, 485 Mass. 86, 98-99 (2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 

2762 (2021), quoting Robinson v. Commonwealth, 445 Mass. 280, 

285 (2005) ("Although rule 18 does not identify what stages of

9 The voir dire of Sierra was also conducted outside the 

defendant's presence.
11

court proceedings are 'critical,' 'fairness demands that the 

defendant be present when his [or her] substantial rights are at 

stake'" [emphasis added]).

The defendant's right to be present at a sidebar conference 

turns not on the substantive versus procedural dichotomy, nor 

does it turn on whether a substantive sidebar deals with an 

issue of law as opposed to one of fact;10 while those certainly 

may be considered, the defendant's right to be present at 

sidebar ultimately depends on whether his or her presence "would 

contribute to the fairness of the procedure," Kentucky v. 

Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987), particularly where the 

sidebar involves an issue of significance at trial and the 

exercise of the rights reserved only to the defendant, like

here, where the sidebar conferences necessarily implicated the 

defendant's decision on whether to testify. However, where a

defendant's "presence would be useless, or the benefit but a 

shadow," id., quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 106-

107 (1934), we see no reason for the defendant to be present at 

10 A number of Federal courts have concluded that a 

defendant may be excluded from all purely legal discussions at 

sidebar, while recognizing that sidebars presenting a mixture of 

facts and law may raise a different set of considerations. See 

Clark v. Stinson, 214 F.3d 315, 322 (2d Cir. 2000). See also 

United States v. Taylor, 489 Fed. Appx. 34, 45 (6th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 568 U.S. 1017 (2012); United States v. McCoy, 8 F.3d 

495, 497 (7th Cir. 1993); Robinson v. Graham, 671 F. Supp. 2d 

338, 358 n.77 (N.D.N.Y. 2009). We decline to adopt such a pure 

fact versus law dichotomy.
12

sidebar, even where the sidebar involves a substantive issue in 

the case. See Snyder, supra.

Where the defendant's presence at sidebar would not be but 

a shadow, but instead would serve some consequential purpose as 

it relates to the issues of significance at trial, the 

defendant's presence at sidebar ought to be permitted. See 

Commonwealth v. Colon, 482 Mass. 162, 172 (2019), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Dyer, 460 Mass. 728, 738 (2011) ("When a judge 

conducts an inquiry about a consequential matter, such as an 

allegation of serious misconduct of a juror or a suggestion of 

juror bias, the defendant is entitled, based on confrontation 

and fair trial rights, to be present"). See also Commonwealth

v. Sleeper, 435 Mass. 581, 588-589 (2002) (defendant entitled to 

be present for consequential matter of questioning impartiality 

of juror). In such circumstances, "'[c]ounsel's presence at 

sidebar and intention to relay information to a defendant does 

not substitute for the defendant's presence' during a critical 

stage of the proceedings." Francis, 485 Mass. at 99, quoting 

Colon, supra at 172-173.

Allowing the defendant to be present in such circumstances

"provides the accused with information necessary to adjust [his 

or her] trial strategy, guarantees that a defendant always has 

the opportunity to object, and, in the event of conviction, 

ensures that the defendant is able fully to assist in an 
13

appeal." Colon, 482 Mass. at 174. This court trusts that 

judges, the defense bar, and prosecutors throughout the 

Commonwealth will encourage defendants to be present as often as 

needed and should do so based on their collective experience and 

trial judges' inherent discretion over their court rooms.11

Here, the defendant was excluded from the substantive 

sidebars that concerned the evidence, or lack thereof, of his 

subjective state of mind as it relates to self-defense. He 

averred in his affidavit in support of his motion for a new 

trial that he would have insisted on testifying had he heard 

that the trial judge characterized the evidence of his 

subjective state of mind as being scant. Where the defendant 

possessed a unique perspective on the evidence of his subjective 

state of mind in the moments leading up to the shooting, the 

defendant ought to have been present at the sidebar conference. 

See Commonwealth v. Campbell, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 368, 373-374 

(2013) (defendant "has the ability to consult with his attorney 

and, as a participant in the event under examination, offer a 

unique perspective").

11 In addition to such experience, the necessary balance of 

authority between counsel's obligation to determine proper trial 

management strategy, and the defendant's exclusive authority to 

make certain fundamental decisions regarding his or her own 

defense, see Commonwealth v. Miranda, 484 Mass. 799, 818-819, 

cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 683 (2020), also may serve as a guiding 

principle to the defendant's right to be present at sidebar.
14

While we acknowledge that it would have been better 

practice for the defendant to have been present for these 

particular sidebar conferences, we note the importance of the 

defendant's specific requests to be present at sidebar. Without 

such a specific request to be present, the defendant's right to 

be present at sidebar will be deemed waived. See Commonwealth

v. Fritz, 472 Mass. 341, 347 (2015). See also Dyer, 460 Mass. 

at 738. A defendant also may forfeit the right to be present

through misconduct.12 See Snyder, 291 U.S. at 106, citing Diaz

v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 455 (1912) ("No doubt the 

privilege [to be present at all critical stages] may be lost by 

consent or at times even by misconduct"). See also Commonwealth

v. Senati, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 307 (1975) (defendant forfeited 

right to be present at trial by refusing repeatedly to obey 

judge's orders, demonstrating unrelenting determination not to 

comply with court room decorum).

Because we hold that the defendant ought to have been 

present at the sidebar, we must next assess whether the error 

12 If a judge finds that a defendant is being unruly, 

disruptive, or otherwise acting inappropriately during sidebar 

conferences, or where there exist security concerns to prevent 

the defendant from being present at sidebar, the judge may 

properly exercise his or her discretion to exclude the defendant 

from sidebar. See Commonwealth v. Perez, 390 Mass. 308, 316 

(1983), S.C., 442 Mass. 1019 (2004), citing Commonwealth v. 

Haley, 363 Mass. 513, 518-519 (1973) ("A trial judge is 

responsible for controlling the trial, maintaining order in the 

courtroom, and guarding against improper conduct of counsel").
15

warrants reversal. The defendant argues that his exclusion from 

sidebar conferences resulted in structural error, requiring 

reversal without a showing of actual harm. We disagree. 

"[T]here is a very limited class of cases presenting structural 

errors that require automatic reversal absent waiver. Such 

errors include the denial of counsel or the right to public 

trial, the omission of an instruction on the standard of beyond 

a reasonable doubt, racial discrimination in the selection of a 

jury, or trial before a biased judge" (quotation and citations 

omitted). Francis, 485 Mass. at 99-100. Each of these 

structural errors "contain[s] a 'defect affecting the framework 

within which the trial proceeds.'" Francis, supra at 100, 

quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 (1999).

Here, the defendant's exclusion from the sidebar 

conferences in which the topic of his subjective state of mind

was discussed does not affect the framework within which the 

defendant's trial proceeded, and thus does not constitute 

structural error; instead, the error is a constitutional trial 

error that we can quantitatively assess in the context of other 

evidence. See Sleeper, 435 Mass. at 588-589 (defendant's 

exclusion from colloquy between judge and juror, in which 

impartiality of trial juror was questioned, violated defendant's 

constitutional right to be present but did not rise to level of 

structural error). Such quantitative assessment involves the 
16

application of a harmless error standard to determine whether 

the exclusion warrants reversal. See id. at 589; Commonwealth

v. Owens, 414 Mass. 595, 603 (1993). Under this standard, if 

"[t]he defendant's presence . . . would not likely have yielded 

anything or altered [the] outcome," then exclusion of the 

defendant from a critical stage will be deemed harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt.13 See Sleeper, supra.

Here, any such evidence and discussion at the sidebar

conferences in which the defendant's subjective state of mind 

was discussed only bore on the issue of self-defense, which this 

court already has held was unavailable to the defendant in these 

circumstances, given the defendant's failure to use the 

reasonable means of retreat that were available to him prior to 

shooting the victim. See Yat Fung Ng, 489 Mass. at 253. 

13 We only review preserved constitutional errors under the

harmless error standard, see Commonwealth v. Yasin, 483 Mass. 

343, 350 (2019), citing Commonwealth v. Tyree, 455 Mass. 676, 

700-701 (2010), "unless the constitutional right infringed is 

'so basic to a fair trial that [its] infraction can never be 

treated as harmless error'" (citation omitted), Commonwealth v. 

Vinnie, 428 Mass. 161, 163-164 (1998). In the later 

circumstance, as explained supra, we consider the deprivation of 

the defendant's constitutional right to be structural error. 

See Francis, 485 Mass. at 99-100. Generally, the harmless error

standard is more favorable to the defendant than the standards 

applicable to certain other nonconstitutional errors. See 

Vinnie, supra. Under this more favorable standard, we presume 

prejudice when faced with a constitutional violation, and such 

prejudice can be overcome only where the Commonwealth makes an

affirmative showing that the error is harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See Tyree, supra at 701.
17

Therefore, where the erroneous exclusion of the defendant from 

these particular sidebar conferences would not have altered the 

outcome, this trial error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt 

and does not warrant reversal.14

2. Sierra's testimony. At trial, the defendant's primary 

defense was one of self-defense. The defendant anticipated that 

his statement to the Commonwealth's witness, Sierra, 

approximately twenty minutes after the shooting, would aid that 

defense. The defendant planned to have Sierra testify on crossexamination that the defendant told Sierra, soon after the 

shooting, something akin to, "[H]e was coming at me, he was 

coming at me, so I had to shoot him." At trial, however, the 

Commonwealth chose not to call Sierra as its witness, and 

simultaneously sought to exclude the very statement the 

defendant sought to introduce. The trial judge ruled in favor 

of the Commonwealth and excluded the statement as inadmissible 

hearsay. Defense counsel objected and then did not call Sierra 

as a defense witness.

14 In summary fashion in his brief, the defendant also takes 

issue with his exclusion from the substantive sidebars relating 

to other evidentiary issues, including, but not limited to, 

those that addressed the admissibility of Sierra's testimony, 

the admissibility and scope of expert testimony about the 

defendant's military record, and the use of a step cane by the 

prosecutor as a demonstrative device. Where the defendant's 

presence at these other substantive sidebars would not have 

yielded anything, or altered the outcome, we discern no 

structural error. See Sleeper, 435 Mass. at 589.
18

On appeal, the defendant argues that the judge erred in 

ruling that the defendant's statement to Sierra was inadmissible 

hearsay. "We review a judge's evidentiary rulings for an abuse 

of discretion." Commonwealth v. Andre, 484 Mass. 403, 414 

(2020), citing Commonwealth v. Rosa, 468 Mass. 231, 237 (2014). 

Under such a standard, we "do not disturb a trial judge's 

decision absent a clear error of judgment in weighing the 

relevant factors." Commonwealth v. McDonagh, 480 Mass. 131, 140 

(2018), quoting Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 Mass. 805, 820 

(2017).

"Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered by a witness 

at trial or hearing to prove the truth of the matter asserted." 

Commonwealth v. Romero, 464 Mass. 648, 651 (2013). See Mass. G. 

Evid. § 801(c) (2022). Hearsay is "generally inadmissible 

unless it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule." 

Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291, 305 (2004). See Mass. G. 

Evid. § 802 (2022).

Here, the trial judge excluded Sierra's testimony that the 

defendant told him after the shooting, while still evading 

police, that "he was coming at me, he was coming at me, so I had 

to shoot him." The trial judge determined that where the 

statement was being admitted for the truth of the matter 

asserted, it was inadmissible. Defense counsel, however, argued 

that the statement was not hearsay, as it was being admitted for 
19

the nonhearsay purpose of the defendant's state of mind. We 

disagree.

Here, the probative value of the defendant's statement to 

Sierra rested in its ability to demonstrate that the defendant 

acted in lawful self-defense. For a defendant to have acted in 

lawful self-defense, the defendant must have "reasonably and 

actually believed that he was in 'imminent danger of death or 

serious bodily harm, from which he could save himself only by 

using deadly force.'" Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393, 396 

(1998), quoting Commonwealth v. Harrington, 379 Mass. 446, 450 

(1980). In Commonwealth v. Burbank, 388 Mass. 789, 794-795 

(1983), we examined an almost identical factual scenario to the 

circumstances here, where the defendant called his friend the 

day after shooting the victim and told him, among other things, 

"I was chased into the alleyway and I had to fire." While we 

determined the statement to be hearsay in character, it was 

nonetheless admitted, not because it constituted admissible 

nonhearsay or alternatively satisfied one of the hearsay 

exceptions, but rather because the prosecution failed to object 

to its admission.15 See id. at 795.

An almost identical statement was made by the defendant 

here to Sierra. Like the statement in Burbank, the probative 

15 Here, the prosecution objected to the statement's 

admissibility.
20

value of the defendant's statement is limited by its hearsay 

character, see Burbank, 388 Mass. at 795, as its value to the 

defendant is necessarily intertwined with its truth. If the 

statement, "he was coming at me, he was coming at me, so I had 

to shoot him," were not admitted for its truth, it would not 

shed any light on whether the defendant reasonably and actually 

believed he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily 

harm, as required for the defendant to have acted in lawful 

self-defense. See Pike, 428 Mass. at 396 (defendant must 

reasonably and actually believe he was in imminent danger of 

serious bodily harm or death to justify use of deadly force in 

self-defense). The statement necessarily was being offered to 

prove a fact, i.e., the fact that the victim was coming at the 

defendant causing the defendant to shoot. Cf. Commonwealth v. 

Jenkins, 458 Mass. 791, 793-794 (2011) (statement made to 

defendant, "You don't want to do this here," admissible not to 

prove fact that defendant did not want to shoot victim in 

victim's barbershop, but instead served as cumulative part of 

witness's statement describing verbal altercation that took 

place at victim's barbershop). Thus, where the statement's 

truth necessarily is intertwined with its probative value, we

agree with the trial judge that it constituted inadmissible 

hearsay.
21

We also note the deficiencies in the defendant's argument 

that the statement constituted admissible nonhearsay. For the 

statement to be admissible as nonhearsay, the statement must be 

relevant on the defendant's state of mind in a manner separate 

and apart from its truth. See Mass. G. Evid. § 801 note ("when 

out-of-court statements are offered for a reason other than to 

prove the truth of the matter asserted or when they have 

independent legal significance, they are not hearsay"). In 

these circumstances, the statement's probative value stems from 

the fact that the statement was made, rather than to prove the 

facts asserted within. See Commonwealth v. Siny Van Tran, 460 

Mass. 535, 550 (2011). Among the nonhearsay purposes for which 

a statement may be admissible is to provide evidence of the 

declarant's state of mind. See Commonwealth v. Martinez, 487 

Mass. 265, 272 (2021). "For statements that convey the 

declarant's state of mind circumstantially or that are probative 

of another's state of mind," the statement is admissible for a 

nonhearsay purpose (emphasis added). Mass. G. Evid. § 803(3)(B)

note (2022). Alternatively, "[w]here the declarant asserts his 

or her own state of mind (usually by words describing the state 

of mind), the statement is hearsay and is admissible only if it 

falls within the [then-existing state of mind] hearsay 

exception." Mass. G. Evid. § 801 note, Evidence Admitted for 

Nonhearsay Purpose, As Circumstantial Evidence of Declarant's 
22

State of Mind (Mass. G. Evid. § 801 note on state of mind). 

"This exception applies only to statements that assert the 

declarant's own state of mind directly" (emphasis added). Mass. 

G. Evid. § 803(3)(B) note, citing Commonwealth v. Woollam, 478 

Mass. 493, 499 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1579 (2018).

Here, the words themselves directly described the 

defendant's state of mind, i.e., that the defendant believed he 

had to shoot the victim because the victim was coming at him. 

Because the words themselves directly described the defendant's 

state of mind, the statement is hearsay, and the proper path 

toward admissibility to demonstrate the defendant's state of 

mind would have been only through the state of mind hearsay 

exception. See Mass. G. Evid. § 801 note on state of mind.

In coming to this conclusion, we emphasize our standard of 

review and the broad discretion afforded to trial judges in 

making evidentiary rulings. See Commonwealth v. Martinez, 476 

Mass. 186, 190 (2017). Where the judge's ruling that the 

statement was hearsay is not clear error in light of the 

relevant considerations, we can discern no abuse of discretion. 

See McDonagh, 480 Mass. at 140. Where we discern no abuse of 

discretion in the trial judge's determination that the statement 

necessarily was being admitted for its truth, our analysis next 

turns to whether the statement is nonetheless admissible under 

one of the hearsay exceptions. See Rice, 441 Mass. at 305. "We 
23

grant a trial judge broad discretion in determining whether a 

hearsay exception applies." Commonwealth v. Ray, 467 Mass. 115, 

137-138 (2014), citing Commonwealth v. King, 436 Mass. 252, 254-

255 (2002).

Here, the defendant's statement does not qualify under the 

state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as a statement 

"purporting to explain past conduct is not admissible" under 

this exception. Commonwealth v. Bianchi, 435 Mass. 316, 327 

(2001). See Mass. G. Evid. § 803(3)(B)(ii) ("Statements, not 

too remote in time, which indicate an intention to engage in 

particular conduct, are admissible to prove that the conduct 

was, in fact, put in effect. Statements of memory or belief to

prove the fact remembered or believed do not fall within this 

exception"). Therefore, where the defendant's statement sought 

to explain his past conduct, i.e., why he shot the defendant, it 

did not shed light on the defendant's present or future intent 

to act, and thus was not admissible under the state of mind 

hearsay exception. See Commonwealth v. Pope, 397 Mass. 275, 281 

(1986) (suicide note confessing to killing victim not admissible 

to demonstrate premeditation and motive, where it purported to 

explain past conduct and did not disclose present or future 

intent to kill).

At trial, the defendant also argued that the statement was 

admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay 
24

rule. See Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 476 Mass. 1041, 1042 (2017), 

quoting Commonwealth v. Alcantara, 471 Mass. 550, 558 (2015) ("A 

statement meets the test for admissibility as an excited 

utterance if '[1] there is an occurrence or event sufficiently 

startling to render inoperative the normal reflective thought 

processes of the observer, and [2] if the declarant's statement 

was a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence or event and not 

the result of reflective thought'" [quotations omitted]). See 

also Mass. G. Evid. § 803(2) (2022). Where the defendant's 

statement came nearly twenty minutes after the shooting 

occurred, undoubtedly after the defendant had time to reflect on 

the incident, we also discern no abuse of discretion in ruling 

that the statement does not constitute an excited utterance, as 

it was not "spontaneous to a degree which reasonably negate[s] 

premeditation or possible fabrication." Commonwealth v. Linton, 

456 Mass. 534, 548 (2010), S.C., 483 Mass. 227 (2019), quoting 

Commonwealth v. DiMonte, 427 Mass. 233, 236 (1998).

Finally, on appeal, the defendant argues that the statement 

was admissible pursuant to the more narrow constitutionally

based hearsay exception. See Commonwealth v. Drayton, 473 Mass. 

23, 36 (2015), S.C., 479 Mass. 479 (2018) (affidavit that failed 

to fall into any traditional hearsay exception would be 

admissible where defendant establishes that such evidence [1] is
25

critical to his or her defense, and [2] bears persuasive 

assurances of trustworthiness). We disagree.16

In Drayton, "we carved out a narrow exception for the 

'rarest' of cases 'where otherwise inadmissible evidence is both 

truly critical to the defense's case and bears persuasive 

guarantees of trustworthiness.'" Commonwealth v. Deconinck, 480 

Mass. 254, 267 (2018), quoting Drayton, 473 Mass. at 40. We 

have applied this exception only where it is necessary "to avoid 

injustice 'where constitutional rights directly affecting the 

ascertainment of guilt are implicated,'" Commonwealth v. 

Steeves, 490 Mass. 270, 282 (2022), quoting Chambers v. 

Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973), or where "exclusion of 

evidence 'significantly undermine[s] fundamental elements of [a] 

defendant's defense,'" Steeves, supra, quoting United States v. 

Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 315 (1998). Neither of those two 

circumstances is present here. Where we have held that this 

16 The Commonwealth argues that trial counsel specifically 

did not raise the constitutionally based hearsay exception as 

the ground for the admission of Sierra's testimony. The 

Commonwealth contends, therefore, that the proper standard under 

which we review the denial of the admission of Sierra's 

testimony is under § 33E, namely, whether the denial caused a 

substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. See 

Commonwealth v. Upton, 484 Mass. 155, 159-160 (2020). See also 

Commonwealth v. Flynn, 362 Mass. 455, 472 (1972) (defendant "is 

not permitted to raise an issue before the trial court on a 

specific ground, and then to present that issue to this court on 

a different ground"). Where neither standard provides the 

defendant relief, we discern no reversible error.
26

constitutionally based hearsay exception is extremely narrow, we 

also emphasize that the exception is not, and never was intended 

to be, a catch-all exception to the hearsay rule. See Drayton, 

supra at 32-33. See also Deconinck, supra at 260-261.

Even if we were to assume that the defendant's statement 

was the type of statement to come within the purview of this 

extremely narrow, constitutionally based hearsay exception, we 

are skeptical of whether the defendant's statement to Sierra was 

truly critical to the defendant's case, as the defendant at all 

times retained the absolute right to testify in his own defense 

that the victim was coming at him during the altercation, 

causing the defendant to shoot. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 456 

Mass. 476, 480 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Novo, 442 Mass. 

262, 268 (2004) ("[T]he right to testify on one's own behalf in 

a criminal case is fundamental"). That the defendant may have 

needed to testify to demonstrate his own subjective state of 

mind during the shooting, as it relates to self-defense, would 

have violated neither his right against self-incrimination nor 

his right to present a complete defense. See Commonwealth v. 

Toon, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 642, 651 n.12 (2002) ("That a defendant 

may need to testify or present evidence in order to raise selfdefense does not violate State or Federal constitutional 

privileges against self-incrimination"). See also Commonwealth

v. Dame, 473 Mass. 524, 533 n.16, cert. denied, 580 U.S. 857
27

(2016) (same). Cf. Commonwealth v. Chukwuezi, 475 Mass. 597, 

602-603 (2016) (right to present complete defense "is not 

unfettered; it is subject to the limitations set forth under 

standard rules of evidence").

We acknowledge that, because the defendant was excluded 

from all substantive sidebars at trial, see part 1, supra, the 

defendant claims he did not appreciate fully his need to testify 

on his statements to Sierra following the shooting, as well as

his subjective state of mind. With that in mind, even if we 

were to further assume that the defendant's statement to Sierra 

was in fact truly critical to his defense, the statement does 

not bear the requisite persuasive guarantees of trustworthiness 

to render it admissible. See Drayton, 473 Mass. at 40. 

"[C]ertain elements support the conclusion that a hearsay 

statement has 'persuasive guarantees of trustworthiness': 

hearsay that fails to satisfy the technical requirements for a 

traditional hearsay exception, but nevertheless appears to fall 

within the rationale for such an exception; hearsay that is 

corroborated by some other evidence in the case; and hearsay 

offering a consistent account on multiple occasions over time." 

Steeves, 490 Mass. at 282-283, citing Drayton, supra at 37-38. 

The defendant's statement to Sierra that he had to shoot the 

victim was not corroborated by any other evidence in the case, 
28

nor was the statement offered on multiple occasions over time as

a consistent account of the events of the shooting.

Furthermore, as discussed supra, the statement does not 

satisfy the requirements for the state of mind hearsay exception 

because it purports to explain past conduct. See Pope, 397 

Mass. at 281. It also fails to satisfy the rationale of an 

excited utterance because it was not "spontaneous to a degree 

which reasonably negate[s] premeditation or possible 

fabrication." See Linton, 456 Mass. at 548, quoting DiMonte, 

427 Mass. at 236. Therefore, where the statement also does not 

fall within the rationale of any hearsay exception, this only

further demonstrates that the statement fails to possess the 

requisite persuasive guarantees of trustworthiness to have been

admitted under the extremely narrow constitutionally based 

hearsay exception found in Drayton. See Steeves, 490 Mass. at 

282-283.

At bottom, where the judge did not his abuse discretion in 

ruling that the statement was inadmissible hearsay, which failed 

to satisfy one of the many exceptions to the hearsay rule, we 

discern neither error nor prejudice.17

17 Even if we were to assume that the judge abused his 

discretion in ruling that the statement was inadmissible 

hearsay, where the defendant preserved his evidentiary 

objection, we review such error for prejudice. See Commonwealth

v. Carney, 472 Mass. 252, 255 (2015). In doing so, we consider 

"whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error," if 
29

3. Expert testimony on defendant's military record. The 

defendant argues that the judge abused his discretion in the 

admission of expert testimony on marksmanship tests the 

defendant previously had passed in order to achieve his military

designation as a United States Army "sharpshooter" with a nine 

millimeter handgun. We disagree.

All evidence must meet a threshold test of relevancy such 

that it has a "rational tendency to prove an issue in the case" 

(citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Carey, 463 Mass. 378, 387 

(2012). Even relevant evidence may be inadmissible, however,

where its probative value substantially is outweighed by the 

danger of unfair prejudice. Id. at 387-388. See Mass. G. Evid. 

§ 403 (2022). "[T]rial judges must take care to avoid exposing 

the jury unnecessarily to inflammatory material that might 

any, "might have contributed to the jury's verdict" (citation 

omitted. Commonwealth v. Carriere, 470 Mass. 1, 7 (2014). 

"Reversal is not necessary if the error 'did not influence the 

jury, or had but very slight effect.'" Id. at 8, quoting 

Commonwealth v. Cruz, 445 Mass. 589, 591 (2005). Here, the 

defendant's statement to Sierra would have been probative of the 

defendant's theory of self-defense, a theory that we previously 

concluded ultimately was not viable given the defendant's 

failure to retreat prior to shooting the victim. See Yat Fung 

Ng, 489 Mass. at 253-254 (concluding that self-defense jury 

instruction was not warranted in this case); id. at 253, quoting 

Commonwealth v. Benoit, 452 Mass. 212, 226-227 (2008) (to act in 

self-defense, one must "avail[] himself [or herself] of all 

means, proper and reasonable in the circumstances, of retreating 

from the conflict before resorting to the use of deadly force"). 

Therefore, the defendant suffered no prejudice even if the 

statement was improperly excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
30

inflame the jurors' emotions and possibly deprive the defendant 

of an impartial jury." Commonwealth v. Berry, 420 Mass. 95, 109 

(1995).

"We review a judge's decision whether the probative value 

of evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice under the abuse of discretion standard." Commonwealth

v. Bishop, 461 Mass. 586, 596 (2012), citing Commonwealth v. 

Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827, 851-852 (2011). Under this standard 

we "do not disturb a trial judge's decision absent a clear error 

of judgment in weighing the relevant factors." McDonagh, 480 

Mass. at 140, quoting Brown, 477 Mass. at 820.

The Commonwealth proceeded on a theory of murder in the 

first degree by means of deliberate premeditation. "To prove 

deliberate premeditation, the Commonwealth has to show that the 

defendant reflected upon his resolution to kill." Commonwealth

v. Robertson, 408 Mass. 747, 756-757 (1990), quoting

Commonwealth v. Dalton, 385 Mass. 190, 196 (1982). "Deliberate 

premeditation would have been present even if the killing 

followed reflection by only a few seconds." Robertson, supra at 

757, quoting Commonwealth v. Basch, 386 Mass. 620, 622 (1982).

After threatening the victim and his friends following 

their physical altercation with other patrons near the front of 

the bar, the defendant returned to his car, searched through the 

trunk, retrieved a firearm, turned back toward the victim, aimed 
31

the firearm at the victim as the victim goaded the defendant to 

shoot him, and shot the victim with a single fatal shot to the 

forehead. That single fatal shot struck the victim 

approximately one and one-half inches to the left of the middle 

of his forehead. At trial, the Commonwealth used the expert 

testimony of Edward Conley, a former United States Army staff 

sergeant, to testify about the defendant's Army records,

particularly about the fact that the records showed that the 

defendant had attained a marksmanship qualification of 

"sharpshooter" with a nine millimeter handgun while serving in 

the Army.

Conley explained the specifics of the test that a soldier

must complete in order to receive such designation. He stated 

that each soldier is faced with thirty targets during the test,

each of which he or she has only three seconds to engage 

successfully. A soldier must shoot successfully at least 

sixteen of thirty targets to receive a marksmanship badge, at 

least twenty-one of thirty targets to receive a sharpshooter 

badge, and then at least twenty-six of thirty targets to obtain 

the highest level of qualification, an expert qualification. 

Thus, where the defendant's Army records demonstrated that he 

had received a marksmanship badge of "sharpshooter," the expert 

opined that he necessarily must have been able to shoot 
32

successfully between twenty-one and twenty-five of the thirty

targets presented during the test.

The defendant argues that the expert testimony of his 

skills and proficiency with a firearm implied to the jury that 

the defendant was a "trained killer." However, "we have not 

unconditionally disapproved of the admission of weapons-related 

evidence unconnected to the commission of a crime." 

Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 463 Mass. 116, 122 (2012). Here, 

information about the defendant's qualification as a 

sharpshooter with a handgun was highly probative on the 

Commonwealth's theory of deliberate premeditation, as the 

defendant's qualification demonstrated his familiarity and 

specialized proficiency with a firearm. See Commonwealth v. 

Tassinari, 466 Mass. 340, 352-353 (2013). See also Commonwealth

v. Hodge (No. 2), 380 Mass. 858, 863 (1980) (defendant's 

proficiency with firearms relevant to deliberate shooting of 

victim). Where the victim was hit with a single fatal shot that 

landed approximately one and one-half inches to the left of the 

middle of the victim's forehead, the placement of the fatal 

wound also supports a finding of deliberate premeditation. See 

Commonwealth v. Coleman, 434 Mass. 165, 169 (2001). See also 

Robertson, 408 Mass. at 757. More specifically, the placement 

of the victim's wound is highly probative of the defendant's 
33

intent and "reflect[ion] upon his resolution to kill." See id. 

at 756-757, quoting Dalton, 385 Mass. at 196.

The defendant characterizes his military qualifications as 

prejudicial because they paint him in a derogatory light as a 

trained killer. However, contrary to the defendant's argument, 

his qualification as a sharpshooter was not the only subject 

about which Conley testified. Conley also testified that the 

records demonstrated that the defendant had been discharged 

honorably from the military and had received a number of other 

medals, awards, and designations.18 Moreover, and perhaps more 

importantly, the judge recognized the potential for unfair 

prejudice in the admission of the military records. He 

specifically told the prosecutor that Conley would be permitted 

to testify only about the requirements to be qualified as a 

sharpshooter, as the prosecution was not going to be allowed to 

"make [the defendant] out [to be] a sniper or anything like 

that." Where the judge recognized the potential for unfair 

prejudice from these records and limited the prosecutor as to 

the scope of the expert's testimony, we discern no clear error 

of judgment in the judge's weighing of the relevant factors and,

thus, no abuse of discretion. See McDonagh, 480 Mass. at 140.

18 Those included an Army lapel button; an Army achievement 

medal, second award; a national defense service medal; and an 

Army service medal.
34

4. Court room closure. The defendant argues that the 

closure of the court room during jury selection on the first day 

of trial violated his right to a public trial under the Sixth 

and Fourteenth Amendments. We disagree.

"The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments . . . guarantee 

defendants 'the right to a . . . public trial.'" Commonwealth

v. Garcia, 482 Mass. 408, 414 (2019). "The Sixth Amendment 

right to a public trial extends to the jury selection process, 

and a violation of that right constitutes structural error." 

Commonwealth v. Robinson, 480 Mass. 146, 149 (2018), citing 

Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899, 1910 (2017). Where a 

defendant timely raises and preserves such a claim of structural 

error, we presume prejudice, such that reversal is automatic. 

Robinson, supra at 150, citing Commonwealth v. Jackson, 471 

Mass. 262, 268 (2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1145 (2016). 

However, "[n]otwithstanding the importance of the right to a 

public trial, it, 'like other structural rights, can be 

waived.'" Robinson, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Cohen (No. 

1), 456 Mass. 94, 105-106 (2010). "Where counsel fails to lodge 

a timely objection to the closure of the court room, the 

defendant's claim of error is deemed to be procedurally waived."

Robinson, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. LaChance, 469 Mass. 

854, 857 (2014). This is true regardless of whether the 
35

defendant's failure to object was a tactical decision or 

inadvertent. Robinson, supra.

After an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's first 

motion for a new trial, the motion judge found that the 

defendant's mother and cousin were told by court personnel that 

they were not allowed in the court room on the first day of 

trial while the jury was being empanelled. They remained 

outside the court room until the jury selection proceedings on 

the first day of trial had concluded. Both, however, were 

permitted to enter the court room for the remainder of the 

trial. Where the right to a public trial extends to the jury 

selection process, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a 

public trial was violated. See Robinson, 480 Mass. at 149. 

Whether such violation constitutes a structural error warranting 

automatic reversal hinges on whether the defendant lodged a 

timely objection to the court room closure. See LaChance, 469 

Mass. at 857.

Here, the issue of the court room closure did not come to 

light until 2014, when the defendant's mother mentioned it in 

conversation with the defendant's sister. As such, neither the 

defendant nor trial counsel was aware at trial that the 

defendant's mother and cousin had been excluded from the court

room during jury selection. The mere fact that trial counsel 

was unaware of the exclusion of the defendant's mother and 
36

cousin from the court room during jury selection is immaterial. 

See Robinson, 480 Mass. at 150 (procedural waiver valid 

regardless of whether counsel's failure to object was tactical 

decision or inadvertent, including where trial counsel was

unaware of court room closure). A contemporaneous objection 

"creates a record that can be directly reviewed by an appellate 

court without the need for collateral proceedings to develop the 

court room closure issue." Id. at 151. Without a 

contemporaneous objection, the trial judge is deprived of the 

ability to confront the violation of the defendant's 

constitutional rights at a time when it could be remedied. See 

Cohen (No. 1), 456 Mass. at 118 n.35. The defendant failed to 

lodge a contemporaneous objection to the court room closure;

therefore, his argument procedurally is waived, and the 

violation does not constitute structural error warranting 

automatic reversal. See Robinson, supra at 154. See also

Commonwealth v. Barry, 481 Mass. 388, 407, cert. denied, 140 

S. Ct. 51 (2019); Commonwealth v. Fernandez, 480 Mass. 334, 347 

(2018).

Nonetheless, even where the issue of court room closure is 

unpreserved, we review the defendant's claim to determine 

whether such violation created a substantial likelihood of a 

miscarriage of justice. See Robinson, 480 Mass. at 147. In 

doing so, we examine a number of factors, which include whether 
37

"[t]he closure was limited to the jury voir dire; the courtroom 

remained open during the evidentiary phase of the trial; the 

closure decision . . . was made by court officers rather than 

the judge; there were many members of the venire who did not 

become jurors but who did observe the proceedings; and there was 

a record made of the proceedings that does not indicate any 

basis for concern, other than the closure itself." Weaver, 137 

S. Ct. at 1913.

We agree with the Commonwealth that many, if not all, of 

the factors listed in Weaver also were present in this case. 

The closure was limited only to the jury selection process, as 

both the defendant's mother and cousin were permitted to be in 

the court room during the evidentiary phase of the trial. The 

closure also was done at the direction of the court officers, 

rather than the trial judge. Further, there exists a transcript 

of the entire trial, from which we discern neither harm nor 

prejudice.19 Therefore, where the closure "did not pervade the 

whole trial or lead to basic unfairness," we conclude there was

19 Potential harms from a court room closure include (1) the 

suggestion that a juror may have lied during voir dire, (2) 

misbehavior by the prosecutor, judge, or any other party, and 

(3) the suggestion that "any of the participants in the voir 

dire failed to approach their duties with the neutrality and 

serious purpose that our system demands." Weaver, 137 S. Ct. at 

1913. None is present here.
38

no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. See 

Weaver, 137 S. Ct. at 1913.

5. Ineffective assistance of counsel. The defendant

argues that trial counsel's failure to advocate for a lesser 

verdict of murder in the second degree, based on insufficient 

evidence of deliberate premeditation, rendered her 

representation of the defendant constitutionally ineffective. 

"Because the defendant was convicted of murder in the first 

degree, we do not evaluate his ineffective assistance [of 

counsel] claim under the traditional standard set forth in 

Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974)." 

Commonwealth v. Denson, 489 Mass. 138, 150 (2022), quoting 

Commonwealth v. Ayala, 481 Mass. 46, 62 (2018). Instead, we 

analyze such a claim under the more favorable standard of § 33E 

to determine whether trial counsel's alleged ineffective 

assistance created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of 

justice. Denson, supra at 150-151. See Commonwealth v. Seino, 

479 Mass. 463, 472 (2018). More specifically, "we determine 

whether defense counsel erred in the course of the trial and, if 

so, 'whether that error was likely to have influenced the jury's 

conclusion.'" Id. at 472-473, quoting Commonwealth v. Wright, 

411 Mass. 678, 682 (1992), S.C., 469 Mass. 447 (2014). "[T]he 

defendant bears the burden of demonstrating both error and 
39

harm." Seino, supra at 473, citing Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 477 

Mass. 658, 674 (2017).

The defendant argues that where this court already has 

decided that no reasonable juror could have found that the 

defendant acted in self-defense, defense counsel's failure to 

advocate for a guilty verdict for murder in the second degree 

left the defendant without any true defense at all, see 

Commonwealth v. Haggerty, 400 Mass. 437, 441-442 (1987), and 

thus, constitutionally was ineffective.

"Where, as here, a claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel is based on a strategic decision, we must determine 

whether that decision was manifestly unreasonable such that 

'lawyers of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law'

would not consider it competent." Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 482 

Mass. 823, 826 (2019), quoting Commonwealth v. Kolenovic, 471 

Mass. 664, 674 (2015), S.C., 478 Mass. 189 (2017). This inquiry 

"involves both temporal and substantive considerations." 

Kolenovic, supra. "The temporal consideration limits the effect 

of hindsight by requiring a focus on the point in time when 

counsel made the challenged strategic decision." Id., citing 

Commonwealth v. Glover, 459 Mass. 836, 843 (2011). Such 

limitation allows us to "make 'every effort . . . to eliminate 

the distorting effects of hindsight.'" Glover, supra, quoting 

Commonwealth v. Fenton F., 442 Mass. 31, 38 (2004).
40

At trial, defense counsel's primary defense was selfdefense. Defense counsel had anticipated that Omar Sierra would 

testify that the defendant told him shortly after the shooting, 

"[the victim] was coming at me, he was coming at me, so I had to 

shoot him." This evidence was excluded. Defense counsel 

nonetheless proceeded with the theory of self-defense. During 

her closing argument, she told the jury, "[T]his case from 

beginning to end, from beginning to end, screams of selfdefense, screams of self-defense." She repeated that argument 

throughout her closing.20

In our previous decision, however, we held that selfdefense was not legally available in the circumstances of this 

case because the defendant failed to retreat where he 

undoubtedly had reasonable means to do so. See Yat Fung Ng, 489 

Mass. at 254 (self-defense unavailable where defendant had 

access to vehicle as reasonable means of retreat but instead 

chose to reach inside vehicle to retrieve firearm to shoot 

victim). Defense counsel's decision to proceed solely on the 

legally untenable theory of self-defense after the exclusion of 

20 In her closing argument, defense counsel also challenged 

the element of malice, one of the essential elements of murder 

in both the first and second degrees. More specifically, 

defense counsel stated: "What [the prosecution does] to try to 

prove that my client committed this crime with some sort of 

malice is pathetic." This only further supports the conclusion 

that defense counsel wanted the jury to focus their attention 

solely on an acquittal.
41

Sierra's testimony, whether strategic or not, was "manifestly 

unreasonable" and constituted error. Rhodes, 482 Mass. at 826.

However, although defense counsel committed a manifestly 

unreasonable error at trial, the error warrants reversal only if 

it created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. 

See Commonwealth v. Montrond, 477 Mass. 127, 135 (2017). See 

also Seino, 479 Mass. at 472. Here, the error likely would not 

have influenced the jury's conclusion, and thus would not have 

created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice

because, as discussed in part 7, infra, the evidence of 

deliberate premeditation supporting a conviction of murder in 

the first degree was strong. See Montrond, supra at 135-136

(trial counsel's decision not to introduce evidence of 

defendant's intoxication did not create substantial likelihood 

of miscarriage of justice on defendant's conviction of murder in 

first degree on theory of deliberate premeditation, where

Commonwealth presented strong evidence of motive).

Furthermore, defense counsel's rigorous advocacy focused 

the jury on self-defense. In addition, the judge instructed the

jury on self-defense, an instruction to which the defendant was 

not entitled given his failure to use reasonable means of 

retreat. See Yat Fung Ng, 489 Mass. at 254. Where the error 

awarded a benefit to the defendant to which he was not entitled, 

and where there was strong evidence of deliberate premeditation,
42

the error likely would not have influenced the jury's conclusion 

and thus did not result in a substantial likelihood of a 

miscarriage of justice. See Commonwealth v. Kirwan, 448 Mass. 

304, 315 (2007) (no substantial likelihood of miscarriage of 

justice where trial error benefitted defendant). See also

Seino, 479 Mass. at 472.

6. Life sentence without possibility of parole. The 

defendant argues that a sentence of life without the possibility 

of parole constitutes cruel or unusual punishment in violation 

of art. 26 of the Declaration of Rights, because the defendant 

was twenty-four years old at the time he committed the murder 

and was not afforded an individualized sentencing hearing as 

described in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and 

Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 

655 (2013), S.C., 471 Mass. 12 (2015). We disagree.

"The touchstone of art. 26's proscription against cruel or 

unusual punishment . . . [is] proportionality." Commonwealth v. 

Concepcion, 487 Mass. 77, 86 (2021), quoting Commonwealth v. 

Perez, 477 Mass. 677, 683 (2017). For a sentence "[t]o reach 

the level of cruel [or] unusual, the punishment must be so 

disproportionate to the crime that it shocks the conscience and 

offends fundamental notions of human dignity." Concepcion, 

supra, quoting Commonwealth v. LaPlante, 482 Mass. 399, 403 
43

(2019). The defendant bears the burden of proving 

disproportionality. Concepcion, supra.

In Diatchenko, 466 Mass. at 673, this court concluded that 

a mandatory sentence of life without parole for juveniles 

convicted of murder in the first degree violates art. 26. In 

light of the available scientific research on adolescent brain 

development, it was clear that "the brain of a juvenile is not 

developed fully, either structurally or functionally, by the age 

of eighteen." See id. at 670. Juveniles, therefore, may 

possess "diminished culpability and greater prospects for 

reform," suggesting that they may be "less deserving of the most 

severe punishments" (citation omitted). Id. As such, we held 

that juveniles ought to be afforded a meaningful opportunity to 

obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and 

rehabilitation, as life imprisonment without possibility of 

parole for this narrow group of criminal defendants violated the 

prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment in art. 26. See 

id. at 670-671. We specifically limited our holding in 

Diatchenko only to those individuals under the age of eighteen

who are faced with mandatory sentences of life without parole 

for murder in the first degree. Id. at 673 n.17. The exception 

to parole eligibility for those "individuals who are eighteen 

years of age or older at the time they commit murder in the 
44

first degree" undoubtedly still remained valid throughout the 

Commonwealth.21 Id.

Here, the defendant was twenty-four years old at the time 

he murdered the victim. Aside from the defendant's age, 

however, and his claim that he was only a young adult at the 

time he committed the murder, the defendant has provided no 

evidence of any circumstance which plausibly could suggest that 

the known research on adolescent brain development, and its 

impact on adolescent behavior, ought to extend to individuals 

who are the age of twenty-four. Cf. Garcia, 482 Mass. at 412-

413 (defendant presented at least some expert testimony that 

suggested that some brain functions do not develop fully until 

around age twenty-two). Thus, we discern no error.

7. Relief pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E. Finally, the 

defendant argues that because of the circumstances of this case, 

justice requires this court to reduce the defendant's conviction 

to murder in the second degree after plenary review of the 

record pursuant to § 33E. We decline to disturb the jury's 

verdict in the circumstances of this case.

21 Since our holding in Diatchenko, 466 Mass. at 670-671, we 

have declined to extend this protection to individuals who are 

over the age of eighteen. See Garcia, 482 Mass. at 413. See 

also Commonwealth v. Gamboa, 490 Mass. 294, 311 n.13 (2022); 

Denson, 489 Mass. at 154; Commonwealth v. Colton, 477 Mass. 1, 

18-19 (2017); Chukwuezi, 475 Mass. at 610.
45

This court has used its extraordinary authority pursuant to 

§ 33E "sparingly and with restraint," reducing convictions "only 

in the most compelling circumstances" (citation omitted). 

Commonwealth v. Billingslea, 484 Mass. 606, 619-620 (2020). See 

Hartung, The Limits of "Extraordinary Power": A Survey of 

First-Degree Murder Appeals under Massachusetts General Laws 

Chapter 278, Section 33E, 16 Suffolk J. Trial & App. Advoc. 1, 9 

(2011) (discussing low reversal rate by this court in § 33E 

cases). See also Allen, Section 33E Survives the Death Penalty: 

Why Extraordinary Review of First-Degree Murder in Massachusetts 

Serves No Compelling Purpose, 45 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 979, 993 

(2012) (same). "Our power under [§ 33E] directs us to consider 

a defendant's entire case, taking into account a broad range of 

factors, when determining whether a conviction of murder in the 

first degree was a miscarriage of justice that warrants a 

reduction in the degree of guilt." Concepcion, 487 Mass. at 94, 

quoting Commonwealth v. Berry, 466 Mass. 763, 770 (2014). We 

emphasize that in conducting plenary review pursuant to § 33E, 

"[o]ur duty is not to sit as a second jury but, rather, to 

consider whether the verdict returned is consonant with 

justice." Concepcion, supra, quoting Commonwealth v. Dowds, 483 

Mass. 498, 512 (2019).

This court, however, has considered a number of factors to 

determine whether a reduction in a jury's verdict is in the 
46

interests of justice. See Commonwealth v. Colleran, 452 Mass. 

417, 431-432 (2008). These factors include whether (1) "the 

intent to kill was formed in the heat of sudden affray or 

combat"; (2) "the homicide occurred in the course of a senseless 

brawl"; (3) "a minor controversy exploded into the killing of a 

human being"; (4) "the entire sequence reflects spontaneity 

rather than premeditation"; (5) "the defendant carried a weapon 

to the scene or left the scene after an initial confrontation 

and returned with a weapon to kill the victim"; (6) "the victim 

was the first aggressor"; (7) "the defendant and the victim were 

strangers or, if only acquaintances, whether there had been 

prior trouble between them"; (8) "the defendant and the victim 

had enjoyed a good relationship prior to the killing"; (9) 

"alcohol or drugs were involved"; and (10) "the personal 

characteristics of the defendant, such as age, family, [work

ethic], disability, and lack of prior criminal record" 

(quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). Id. This 

list is not exhaustive of all possible considerations that may 

arise in the future.

Before we examine whether the circumstances of the

defendant's conviction warrant a reduction in verdict, we note 

that many of this court's previous reversals and reductions in 

verdict, pursuant to § 33E review, are grounded in particular 

reversible error, most often erroneous jury instructions, and do 
47

not evidence a practice of this court to conclude, sua sponte,

that the facts of the murder are so unusual and compelling that 

a reduced verdict is more consonant with justice. See Hartung, 

supra at 9-11. Instead, where there exists no clear reversible 

error, and where a defendant merely urges this court that the 

unique circumstances of the case warrant a reduction in the 

verdict pursuant to § 33E, we have exercised our discretion to 

reduce a defendant's verdict far less, and we emphasize that we 

will continue to do so only in the most extraordinary and 

compelling factual circumstances. See Billingslea, 484 Mass. at 

619 (from 2011 to 2019, this court exercised § 33E powers as 

sole means of reversal in only four cases, of approximately 296 

cases and thirty-seven total reversed convictions). See also 

Colleran, 452 Mass. at 431, quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 

364 Mass. 145, 151 (1973) ("Regard for the public interest 

impels us to use with restraint our power under § 33E to modify 

the jury's verdict").

In Colleran, 452 Mass. at 433, we concluded that, while 

there existed sufficient evidence for the jury to return a 

verdict of murder in the first degree by means of deliberate 

premeditation, "the heft of the evidence [fell] more squarely 

with murder in the second degree." There, the defendant 

suffered from profound depression and mental illness, which 

produced an illogical ideation serving as the motive for the 
48

defendant's deliberate killing of her two and one-half year old 

daughter. See id. at 419, 432. The incident reflected 

spontaneity: it was not planned; no weapon was carried to the 

scene; no hostile relationship existed between the defendant and 

her child; the defendant "was in a stable family relationship, 

and gainfully employed"; and, although the defendant had used 

drugs before, there was no drug use in the five years before the 

murder, nor did the defendant possess any sort of criminal 

record. See id. at 433.

Thus, where "the evidence of premeditation was so 

intertwined with the defendant's mental illness, and where the 

case present[ed] multiple factors we have previously identified 

when exercising our power under § 33E," this court reduced the 

verdict to murder in the second degree, a verdict that was "more 

consonant with justice." Id. While mental illness alone 

generally is insufficient to reduce a verdict under § 33E, in 

recent years, this court has reduced convictions of murder in 

the first degree to murder in the second degree to account 

particularly for a defendant's mental health and severe mental 

illness issues. See Concepcion, 487 Mass. at 95-96 (defendant's 

mental condition, cognitive impairments, and young age rendered 

him ill-suited to resist pressure from other adult gang members

to carry out shooting of victim). See also Dowds, 483 Mass. at

513 (defendant's two serious brain injuries as child produced 
49

long-term brain damage and abnormal inability to control 

impulses, which weighed heavily in defendant's reckless killing 

of victim during unarmed robbery of victim's car). But see 

Commonwealth v. Whitaker, 460 Mass. 409, 421 (2011) (declined to 

reduce verdict where "defendant's psychological diagnosis, while 

significant, does not reach [a sufficient] level of severity, 

and there is no evidence that it was intertwined with the 

victim's killing").

There is nothing here to suggest that the defendant's 

killing of the victim was the result of mental illness such as 

in the aforementioned cases. Instead, the defendant's case more 

closely aligns with those cases in which a defendant is found 

guilty of murder in the first degree as a result of a "senseless 

brawl," see Commonwealth v. Ransom, 358 Mass. 580, 583 (1971), 

or "the heat of sudden affray or combat," that demonstrates "a 

minor controversy . . . explod[ing] into the killing of 

[another]," see Commonwealth v. Baker, 346 Mass. 107, 110, 119 

(1963).

In Commonwealth v. Vargas, 475 Mass. 338, 365-366 (2016), 

this court determined that there were many Colleran factors

present to justify reducing the verdict. In Vargas, the victim 

burst into his estranged wife's apartment and attacked both her 

and the defendant. Id. at 341. The victim knocked the 

defendant back, from the living room into the bedroom, and 
50

jumped on top of him, which led to the defendant stabbing the 

victim in the use of excessive deadly force in self-defense. 

Id. at 341, 366-367. In finding the defendant guilty of murder 

in the first degree, the jury rejected a theory of deliberate 

premeditation and, instead, found the defendant guilty of murder 

in the first degree on the theory of extreme atrocity or 

cruelty, "focus[ing] its inquiry exclusively on the altercation 

itself." Id. at 365. The lack of clear deliberate 

premeditation demonstrated that the killing "was the result of 

uncontrolled violent action." Id. at 367. This was exacerbated 

only further by the evidence that the victim was the initial 

aggressor; the victim was "much larger, trained in unarmed 

combat, and [was] enraged" at the time of the altercation; and,

moreover, prior to using the knife in killing the victim, the 

defendant asked a nearby witness to call 911. Id. at 365. 

Therefore, where "[t]he sequence that led to the killing 

indicate[d] spontaneity, and reflect[ed] that the killing was 

more the product of sudden combat and the heat of passion than 

of malice," we found the case to be one of the unusual 

circumstances in which a reduction in the verdict from murder in 

the first degree to voluntary manslaughter was "more consonant 

with justice." See id. at 366-367.

Here, the victim was unarmed during the entire altercation 

with the defendant. Unlike in Vargas, the instant defendant was 
51

the initial aggressor or, at the very least, was the individual 

who reignited the already dispersed altercation, by threatening 

the victim and his two friends with deadly force. Cf. Vargas, 

475 Mass. at 365-366. Prior to the shooting, the victim here 

also neither had lunged at the defendant, like the victim in 

Vargas, nor used any physical force against the defendant beyond 

mere insults and vaguely threatening gestures. See Commonwealth

v. Vatcher, 438 Mass. 584, 588 (2003) (mere insults insufficient 

to constitute adequate provocation to negate murder conviction).

Perhaps most important, however, for our analysis on 

whether the circumstances of the defendant's killing of the 

victim warrant a reduction in the verdict is the fifth factor 

found in Colleran, namely, "whether the defendant carried a 

weapon to the scene, . . . or left the scene after an initial 

confrontation and returned with a weapon to kill the victim." 

See Colleran, 452 Mass. at 431. In Coleman, 434 Mass. at 166-

167, 173, this court denied relief under § 33E in almost 

identical circumstances to the present case. There, the 

defendant was involved in an altercation where punches were 

thrown outside a nightclub. Id. at 166. The defendant left the 

brawl and went to a nearby car, where another man told the 

defendant, "It ain't over. It ain't over. Pop the trunk. Pop 

the trunk." Id. at 168. The defendant then retrieved a gun 

from the trunk. Id. at 166. While the victim had followed the 
52

defendant to the car, the victim was unarmed. Id. Ultimately, 

the defendant turned toward the victim and shot him at close 

range. Id. at 168.

In Commonwealth v. Whipple, 377 Mass. 709, 712, 714-715 

(1979), a similar circumstance unfolded, where a defendant was 

convicted of murder in the first degree by means of deliberate 

premeditation where a defendant disengaged from a fistfight, 

obtained a gun from a nearby car, returned to the scene of the 

previous altercation in short time, and shot the victim. Both 

Coleman and Whipple demonstrate that where this court has been 

faced with circumstances in which a defendant has left the scene 

after an initial confrontation, only to return with a deadly 

weapon to kill the victim, we have "regularly denied § 33E 

relief." Whipple, supra at 715. See Coleman, 434 Mass. at 168-

169, 173. See also Commonwealth v. Stillwell, 366 Mass. 1, 5-6 

(1974), cert. denied sub nom. McAlister v. Massachusetts, 419 

U.S. 1115 (1975) (no reduction in verdict where defendant had 

dispute with victim over ten-dollar dice game, retrieved gun 

from his house, and returned to resume argument and shoot 

victim); Commonwealth v. Pratt, 360 Mass. 708, 715 (1972) (no 

reduction in verdict where defendant argued with victim, went 

home to retrieve gun, and shortly thereafter shot victim seven 

times).
53

The facts of the defendant's case glaringly are similar to 

those of Coleman and Whipple, both of which are instances where

this court declined to exercise its extraordinary § 33E powers. 

See Coleman, 434 Mass. at 166-167; Whipple, 377 Mass. at 714-

715. Here, after the altercation outside the instant bar had

concluded, and security had dispersed the two groups of 

individuals that had been fighting, the defendant confronted the 

victim, Lee, and Miranda, and began to threaten them with a gun. 

More specifically, the defendant said to the victim and his 

friends, "You think you're bullet proof, you think you're bullet 

proof"; "What's up tough guys? You think you're bullet proof? 

I got something for you. I got something for you in my trunk. 

You think you're bullet proof?"22 As the victim yelled back, the 

defendant walked to his own car, which led the victim to say, 

"You better run." The defendant picked up his pace toward his 

car, walking purposefully. When a nearby witness told the 

defendant something to the effect of "It's over," the defendant 

responded with either "It's not over for me" or "I have 

business." In that moment, as he walked toward the car, the 

defendant "formed the plan to kill." See Coleman, 434 Mass. at 

168. The defendant retrieved a gun from his trunk, turned to 

the defendant, raised the gun, and pointed it at the victim, 

22 At trial, Lee testified that what the defendant was 

referring to in the trunk of his car was a firearm.
54

saying, "Yeah, you want this? You want this?" The victim 

responded, "What are you gonna do, shoot me? Go ahead, shoot 

me," as well as "Go ahead, do it. Do it." As the victim 

antagonized the defendant to shoot him, the defendant fired at 

the victim, hitting him with a single shot that landed one and 

one-half inches to the left of the middle of the victim's 

forehead.

The defendant argues that this court nonetheless should 

look to his personal characteristics as justification for a 

reduction in the verdict to murder in the second degree.23 More 

specifically, the defendant argues that at the time of the 

crime, he was only twenty-four years of age, he was employed 

gainfully by a university as a full-time security guard, he was 

enrolled as a student at a community college, he was honorably 

discharged from the United States Army, and he had no previous 

criminal record.24 While we can appreciate the fact that these 

23 The defendant also argues that where he received 

deficient legal representation and where there were multiple 

errors throughout his trial, this court ought to reduce the 

verdict. Where we already have concluded, supra, that the 

defendant neither received constitutionally ineffective 

assistance of counsel nor suffered from any other reversible 

trial error, we decline to do so.

24 The defendant also urges this court to look at the fact 

that he had been drinking prior to killing the victim, as 

another factor to consider for a reduction in the verdict. The 

mere fact that the defendant's alleged "anger and fear [were]

somewhat compounded and heightened by drink" necessarily does 
55

factors possibly could weigh in the defendant's favor, see 

Colleran, 452 Mass. at 431-432, we do not believe they are 

sufficient to warrant a reduction in the verdict to murder in 

the second degree. The circumstances surrounding the killing 

demonstrate that the defendant "disengaged after the initial 

encounter, but then . . . chose to return." See Whipple, 377 

Mass. at 715. He did so despite neither being physically 

injured in the altercation nor even being involved in the 

initial altercation outside the bar. The defendant deliberately 

left the scene to retrieve a weapon, to confront an unarmed 

victim, to "return[] to do murderous work." See id. See also 

Stillwell, 366 Mass. at 5-6 (defendant "left the scene for a 

[short] period of time to obtain [a] weapon[], then returned to 

the scene and committed the homicide[]").

The overwhelming evidence of deliberate premeditation 

boiled down to the defendant's decision to "reach[] for his 

firearm rather than his keys." Yat Fung Ng, 489 Mass. at 254. 

The defendant unnecessarily caused a mere verbal argument, one 

in which he was not even involved and that initially began with 

the childish verbal banter of "Yankees suck," to explode into a 

killing through the unnecessary and unjustified use of deadly 

force. Despite his claim that he was acting as a "good 

not warrant a reduction in verdict to murder in the second

degree. See Whipple, 377 Mass. at 715.
56

[S]amaritan," the defendant antagonized and reignited an 

altercation that had ended. Most importantly, he retained a 

clear, short period of reflection and premeditation after the 

original verbal altercation, in which he very well could have 

gotten into his car and left the bar; instead, he chose to arm 

himself, because the situation was not "over for [him]," and he 

took care of the so-called "business" that he had with the 

victim, which unfortunately ended in the victim's death.

The factual circumstances surrounding the defendant's case 

are not so extraordinary and compelling as to justify a 

reduction in verdict pursuant to § 33E. See Billingslea, 484 

Mass. at 620. Accordingly, after plenary review of the entire 

record, we discern it necessary to exercise restraint over our 

extraordinary powers pursuant to G. L. c. 278, § 33E, and we 

affirm the defendant's convictions.

Judgments affirmed.

Order denying motion for a 

new trial affirmed.