SJC hears appeal over 'sudden combat' instruction and judge's sentencing comments in Commonwealth v. Poohme

The Supreme Judicial Court heard argument in SJC-13443, Commonwealth v. Dara Poohme, over whether the trial court erred by (1) giving—or by limiting the effect of—a "sudden combat" mitigating-circumstances instruction in the murder charges and (2) prejudging sentencing by announcing he would impose consecutive life sentences before hearing mitigation evidence.

The questions affect how courts treat claims that a defendant acted in the heat of sudden combat when the encounter unfolded over minutes inside a home, and whether a judge's pre-sentencing statements can deprive a defendant of a meaningful mitigation hearing.

Andrew Crouch, attorney for Mr. Poohme, told the justices that the facts support a narrow form of sudden-combat mitigation because the confrontation "evolve[d] over time" inside the apartment, with the defendant intoxicated, searching rooms and later placed in a bathroom where he tried to leave several times before a physical struggle. Crouch argued the jury could have found the defendant was attempting to withdraw when one of the occupants lunged for the gun. He said the record shows "this is a narrow…