Court Opinion

ID: 9520618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:45:30.008168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:33.056598
License: Public Domain

Liacos, J.
(dissenting). Manslaughter, like murder, is not statutorily defined in Massachusetts. The elements of the crime are derived from common law. See Commonwealth v. Godin, 374 Mass. 120, 126 (1977). Involuntary manslaughter has been defined as “an unlawful homicide, *371unintentionally caused (1) in the commission of an unlawful act, malum in se,[1] not amounting to a felony nor likely to endanger life . . . , or (2) by an act which constitutes such a disregard of probable harmful consequences to another as to constitute wanton or reckless conduct” (citation omitted). Commonwealth v. Campbell, 352 Mass. 387, 397 (1967). See Commonwealth v. Lacasse, 365 Mass. 271, 273 (1974). These alternative bases of culpability were set forth in the judge’s charge to the jury without objection. The primary question before this court is whether the evidence reasonably supports the jury’s conclusion that the essential elements of involuntary manslaughter as to each defendant had been proved by the Commonwealth beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendants had engaged in a joint enterprise, (2) that the object of the joint enterprise was an unlawful act, and (3) that the misdemeanor was the proximate cause of the deaths.* 2 The court concludes that there is insufficient evidence of proximate causation between the drownings of the victims and the attack by the defendants. Apparently, the court reaches this decision as a consequence of its conclusion that the conduct of the defendant Terpak in inflicting damage on the vehicle of the victims was not part of the defendants’ joint venture to do physical violence. Terpak’s actions are viewed by this court to be an interven*372ing cause breaking the chain of causation. I believe that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack on the automobile was part of the unlawful joint enterprise. The permissible inferences to be drawn from the evidence are sufficient “to bring minds of ordinary intelligence and sagacity to the persuasion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Casale, 381 Mass. 167, 168 (1980). Accordingly, I dissent.
1. Joint venture. The court sets forth the proper test for determining a joint venture. The ultimate conclusion it reaches, however, is unwarranted.3 To require proof of intent or agreement to commit a particularized “battery” on these facts is inconsistent with common sense. Our manslaughter cases focus on the conduct involved, not the harm intended. Conduct which reasonably and foreseeably causes harm and, ultimately, death is sufficient to establish manslaughter if that conduct is wanton and reckless. Commonwealth v. Godin, supra. The court’s view that the evidence was only sufficient for the jury to find that the defendants were participants in a joint venture to do physical violence on the occupants of the automobile is unjustifiable. There was ample evidence of a planned assault on three persons by the seven defendants. There was evidence that the defendants knew their intended victims to be operating a motor vehicle. It was clearly foreseeable that this plan could produce not only assaults and batteries on the persons but also attacks on the vehicle, if necessary.
The evidence presented to the jury showed the objectives of the defendants to be to “kick ass,” “go look for the guys in *373the Cadillac,” “get them back,” “find these guys,” “teach them a lesson,” or “beat the shit out of them.” There is also evidence that everyone was reaching and grabbing into the automobile. Furthermore, no defendant objected to or protested the breaking of the windshield. Several of them pounded on the windows of the automobile. After appraising the evidence, the jury could have drawn the reasonable inference that the agreement among the defendants was to commit unlawful acts of a violent nature against the persons and against their possessions, including an attack on the vehicle.4 I doubt that a jury should be required to engage in consideration of the unlikely speculation that criminal defendants of this kind divided their unlawful plans to preclude a damage to the vehicle. Indeed, an assault on the automobile could be viewed as an assault on the occupants. Assaultive conduct need not be inflicted directly on the victim. See People v. Moore, 3 N.Y.S. 159, 160 (Sup. Ct. 1888); W. LaFave & A.W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law § 81, at 604 (1972); R. Perkins, Criminal Law 108-109 (2d ed. 1969). Therefore, the defendants can be held culpable for the unintended results of the attack on the victims and their automobile if those results were proximately caused by the unlawful conduct of the defendants.
2. Proximate carnation. It is true that proximate causation in a criminal case must entail a closer relationship between the result and the intended conduct than proximate causation in tort law. See Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 379 Mass. 810, 823-825 (1980); W. LaFave & A.W. Scott, Jr., supra at 251. The court, however, has carried this principle too far and concludes that there is insufficient evidence to establish proximate causation beyond a reasonable doubt because of the court’s uncertainty whether the victims jumped into the automobile to escape or to protect the vehi*374cle from harm.5 The intent or purpose of the deceased victims is a matter of fact which is not susceptible of proof by direct evidence. The victims are not alive to tell us why they got back into the automobile. Therefore, a jury must rely on proper inferences from all the facts and circumstances developed at the trial. See Commonwealth v. Casale, supra at 172, and cases cited. “The inferences drawn by the jury need only be reasonable and possible and need not be necessary or inescapable.” Id. at 173.
The entire incident was estimated to have taken place in twenty to thirty seconds. The melee involved seven men against three. The statement of one defendant indicated shouts of “We’re going to kill you.” A witness testified that the victims were wobbly as they got back in their automobile. Several witnesses testified that the automobile accelerated very rapidly and the two front wheels came off the ground, enabling the automobile to clear the four and one-half inch curb.6 In fact, one of the defendants indicated in his statement that he thought the deceased were trying to get away from harm. From these facts the jury could reasonably infer that the victims sought to escape further harm. The evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to infer the existence of an essential element. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979).
Injury during an escape is within the scope of foreseeability by persons intending physical violence. See Jones v. *375State, 220 Ind. 384, 387 (1942). Whether Retzel was attempting to put the gear shift in park or reverse is irrelevant. The evidence showed that, in his escape attempt, he missed both, and the vehicle was in drive as a result of defendant Terpak’s attack on the automobile.
This is not a situation where the defendants’ joint actions of physical violence remotely linked a chain of events leading to the victims’ deaths. The normal, impulsive tendencies of the victims to escape were caused by the attack of the defendants. See Commonwealth v. Rhoades, supra at 825. Death during the attempt by the victims to avoid further harm was the foreseeable result of the continuous sequence of events caused by the defendants’ joint actions. Id. The evidence and the inferences permitted to be drawn reasonably support a finding of proximate causation beyond a reasonable doubt. See Commonwealth v. Casale, supra at 172, 173; Commonwealth v. Latimore, supra at 677. This court should not invade the province of the jury by substituting its judgment on questions of fact. I dissent.

 See Commonwealth v. Adams, 114 Mass. 323, 324 (1873) (an act malum in se includes injuries to persons or property when done wilfully or corruptly).

 Culpability for involuntary manslaughter may also be based on an omission or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act. See Commonwealth v. Welansky, 316 Mass. 383, 397 (1944); 2 C. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 172 (14th ed. 1979). Some courts have held that there is a duty to rescue a person who has been endangered by the defendant’s criminal activity. See Jones v. State, 220 Ind. 384, 387 (1942); State v. Myers, 7 N.J. 465, 475-481 (1951); W. LaFave & A.W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law § 26, at 186 (1972). Cf. Commonwealth v. Cali, 247 Mass. 20, 24 (1923) (defendant had duty to extinguish fire in building even if accidentally caused). This theory of culpability was not raised at trial. Consequently, I do not premise my dissent on the possible culpability on the part of the defendants for failing to rescue the victims from the submerged automobile.

 The court states: “The defendants other than Terpak could not have been convicted on [a theory of joint venture], in any event, because there was insufficient evidence that they shared the mental state required of joint venturers with respect to the attack on the car.” Supra at 364. The judge charged the jury that a joint venture could be considered in the context of an intent to participate in either a “criminal venture” or the assault and battery, and “[sjome active participation in or furtherance of the criminal enterprise.” There was ample evidence to warrant a verdict of guilty on either theory.

 The jury properly followed the charge given by the trial judge on joint venture and assault and battery. The court’s opinion is silent on whether there was an objection to these aspects of the charge. The record reveals that there was none on these issues.

 The defendants might also have been held criminally responsible for death resulting from attempts to rescue property put in jeopardy by the wrongful act of a defendant. See State v. Leopold, 110 Conn. 55, 62 (1929). The Commonwealth, however, did not proceed on this basis. I do not rely, therefore, on this principle.

 Acceleration of a motor vehicle so rapidly that the two front wheels lift off the ground is not compatible with the court’s view that the evidence can be interpreted equally such that the victims were merely trying to prevent damage to the automobile. The thought that these victims would be concerned about the vehicle rather than their own physical safety is pure sophistry. Common sense would tell a jury otherwise, as this jury found. Indeed, the only question here is whether the jury’s verdict is sufficiently supported by the evidence. Clearly, this jury’s verdict is amply supported.