Shooting Innocent Bystander Isn't Murder

So the MA Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling today that states pretty much just that.

Massachusetts charged the defendant, Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez, with murder in the first degree for causing the death of Trung Tran. Tran was an innocent
bystander tragically killed when the defendant, involved in an altercation with another person, fired two gunshots at his opponent. After the shooting, the defendant informed police that the other person, Irving Sanchez, started an argument, displayed a firearm in his waistband, and threatened, "You know what's about to happen." According to the defendant, he responded to the threat of deadly force by drawing a pistol and twice firing at Sanchez. One gunshot struck Tran, who was
nearby, in the chest.

The defendant appealed the charges, and the MA SJC ruled that a defendant's lawful self-defense against an assailant may excuse the killing of an unintended victim, such as an innocent bystander. This is not, however, a defense to wanton or reckless conduct. A defendant may therefore be held criminally liable for the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter if the Commonwealth proves that a defendant's exercise of self-defense was wanton or reckless so as to create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to an unintended victim.

The court called it "transferred intent" and other states have similar laws or rulings as well.

Without making any commentary on the ruling, the defendant should've told the cops (a)I plead the fifth and (b)I want a lawyer.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-santana-rodriguez-sjc-f13753/download

Quote: GenoDRPh

So the MA Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling today that states pretty much just that.

Massachusetts charged the defendant, Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez, with murder in the first degree for causing the death of Trung Tran. Tran was an innocent
bystander tragically killed when the defendant, involved in an altercation with another person, fired two gunshots at his opponent. After the shooting, the defendant informed police that the other person, Irving Sanchez, started an argument, displayed a firearm in his waistband, and threatened, "You know what's about to happen." According to the defendant, he responded to the threat of deadly force by drawing a pistol and twice firing at Sanchez. One gunshot struck Tran, who was
nearby, in the chest.

The defendant appealed the charges, and the MA SJC ruled that a defendant's lawful self-defense against an assailant may excuse the killing of an unintended victim, such as an innocent bystander. This is not, however, a defense to wanton or reckless conduct. A defendant may therefore be held criminally liable for the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter if the Commonwealth proves that a defendant's exercise of self-defense was wanton or reckless so as to create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to an unintended victim.

The court called it "transferred intent" and other states have similar laws or rulings as well.

Without making any commentary on the ruling, the defendant should've told the cops (a)I plead the fifth and (b)I want a lawyer.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/commonwealth-v-santana-rodriguez-sjc-f13753/download

Seems eminently reasonable to me. He certainly didn’t have ANY INTENT to even harm the bystander. I’m pretty sure that’s a perfect scenario for a manslaughter charge. If it was done with an illegal firearm, throw away the key!

Nail the shooter for a form of negligent homicide, like when you're driving fast, lose control and hit and kill an innocent person: the key is negligence, not criminal intent.

Clearly it was negligent to shoot Tran.

Quote: missedhervee

Nail the shooter for a form of negligent homicide, like when you're driving fast, lose control and hit and kill an innocent person: the key is negligence, not criminal intent.

Clearly it was negligent to shoot Tran.

Not that this actually happened here, but I have two hypotheticals that maybe you could weigh in on:

(1) Let's say a person is carrying a firearm and they are not licensed.Perhaps they are a convicted felon, or a drug addict or a mental patient. They are set upon by ruffians and they use the illegal gun in legitimate self-defense. The judge and the prosecutor agree that they had a reasonable and well founded fear of imminent bodily harm or death. Would they still be guilty of illegal possession of a firearm? Note: Isn't that what got Bernie Goetz?

(2) Let's say a person is being shot at by an assailant, and the shooting was unprovoked. The assailant is hiding behind an innocent bystander, perhaps a hostage and is shooting, and perhaps there are no reasonable opportunities for the victim to escape, or seek cover or concealment. The victim reasonably concludes there are two choices, not return fire and risk being shot, or return fire and eliminate the threat of being shot at, even if it means the innocent bystander is shot.So the victim draws their legal firearm and returns fire, carefully aiming to not hit the innocent bystander. But, the innocent bystander is hit and is mortally wounded or killed. Is the victim guilty of a crime, in shooting the innocent bystander while returning fire to eliminate the treat from the assailant?

1. Yes, guilty of illegal possession of a firearm, but still able to raise self defense to charge of murder.

2. Interesting factual pattern...one I can only hypothesize about.

My guess: not charge of murder for killing the innocent hostage as tjhe shooting was in self defens, but the death of the innocent cannot be overlooked, so maybe some form of manslaughter or possibly neg hom?

My experience as an attorney was mostly civil: I quickly realized felony criminal law was not what I wanted to practice,