Mass. Supreme Judicial Court hears challenge to admitting prior felony to prove lack of firearm license

The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. Boymott Collins about whether a prosecution may introduce a defendant’s prior felony conviction to prove that he lacked a firearm license.

Defense attorney Matthew Zendroski, representing Boymott Collins, told the court that “the probative value of the evidence of the prior felony conviction was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice” and argued the ruling below improperly allowed the Commonwealth to tell the jury the defendant was a “convicted felon.” Zendroski urged that the Commonwealth should instead prove lack of licensure through CJIS records or other less prejudicial means and questioned the sufficiency of identification evidence from an older docket, saying the prosecution failed to establish that the person in the earlier file was the same individual at trial.

Assistant District Attorney Elizabeth Martino, for the Commonwealth, replied that Old Chief v. United States and the prosecution’s burden of proof allow the government to introduce contextual evidence and that a defendant cannot force the prosecution to stipulate to an element if the defendant refuses. Martino said trial judges have discretion to admit such evidence when it is material and not unfairly prejudicial and described safeguards used in the trial court — redaction of the nature of the prior offense, limiting jury instructions, and ensuring the prior conviction predates the charged offense.

Argument touched on several recurring points: whether the admission of a prior felony is inherently propensity evidence that will unfairly influence jurors; the availability and practical sufficiency of CJIS (Criminal Justice Information Services) or licensing-authority testimony as alternatives; and whether trial judges across the Commonwealth should be given clearer guidance to avoid “disparate outcomes” on similar facts. Zendroski emphasized the risk that jurors will equate any felony label with serious wrongdoing; Martino emphasized that the Commonwealth, having the burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt, may present the best available evidence unless the defendant stipulates.

The attorneys and justices also discussed factual sufficiency in the underlying trial record, including a referenced exhibit (Exhibit 26) that contained a full name and date of birth and contrast with trial testimony that omitted the year of birth. Defense counsel argued that, on the record, that omission and the commonness of the defendant’s last name undermined proof that the prior conviction belonged to the same person.

Several justices questioned both counsel about the practical effects of a rule either requiring CJIS proof or permitting prior-conviction evidence with redactions and limiting instructions. Counsel agreed that guardrails matter; Martino described the record below as closely following prior bad-act evidentiary jurisprudence and said the trial judge (Judge Cowan) employed redactions and limiting instructions as appropriate. Defense counsel told the court that some lower courts have reached different results on similar evidence, framing the issue as one of statewide significance.

No decision was announced during the argument. The record shows the court heard extended discussion of Old Chief, the interplay of evidentiary balancing tests, and the practical alternatives available to prosecutors and trial courts when proving licensure-related elements.