Appeals court weighs self-defense instruction in scooter confrontation

Peter Brewer, representing appellant William Reagan, told the Appeals Court that the trial judge erred by denying a jury instruction on self defense after a street confrontation that escalated on a sidewalk. Brewer said the evidence — including a stipulatively admitted silent video, witness testimony that the victim sometimes carried a knife, and the defendant’s account of being confronted — sufficed to create a question for the jury.

“Any evidence that would support it should be considered,” Brewer said, arguing that the judge became “obsessed” with the silent video and thereby unfairly closed the court’s mind to other testimony. He also criticized the trial court’s restriction on the defendant’s testimony about the victim’s habit of carrying a knife, saying that evidence went to the defendant’s state of mind and reasonableness of his response.

Assistant Attorney General Emily Domolowitz, for the Commonwealth, told the panel the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, still did not raise a reasonable doubt about the prerequisites for self defense. She emphasized that the defendant had multiple opportunities to retreat while on a motor vehicle and that the video showed available escape routes. The Commonwealth also argued there was no evidence the victim had a weapon that day and that the force used — driving a motor vehicle toward a person — was disproportionate.

Justices questioned counsel about the duty to retreat and whether a mistaken but reasonable belief about a weapon can still support self defense. Brewer acknowledged the defendant might have been able to retreat but said the encounter involved two discrete confrontations and evidence supported a claim that the victim approached on the sidewalk with something in his hand and shouted, “I got you now.” The court took the arguments under advisement.