Supreme Judicial Court hears challenge to admission of witness statement and self-defense instruction in Renardo Williams appeal

An appeal by Renardo Williams Jr. asking the Supreme Judicial Court to overturn rulings in his trial over admission of an out‑of‑court statement and jury instructions on self defense was argued before the court. Defense attorney Jeffrey Baylor said a statement by a witness identified in the record as Mr. Francois — who was not available to testify at trial — should have been admitted, and that the trial judge improperly required Williams to testify before the gun‑related portion could be considered relevant.

Why it matters: The dispute turns on whether parts of Francois’s police statement were admissible as statements against penal interest and whether the trial judge’s instructions to the jury properly allowed the panel to consider a reasonable but mistaken belief or the defendant’s inability to safely retreat when deciding whether to convict of higher and lesser homicide‑related counts.

Baylor told the court that Francois “told police that at the time of the incident he was carrying a handgun and said that it was in his pocket. And when he realized police were on the way, he threw it out.” Baylor argued that evidence that a weapon had been carried and discarded, together with other trial evidence, should have been enough to permit the jury to consider self defense without requiring Williams’s own testimony first.

Assistant District Attorney Melissa Johnson, arguing for the Commonwealth, countered that the full context of Francois’s statement mattered. Johnson told the panel, “I just want to clarify for Justice Wolohojian. The victim was not shot in the head. … He died because he was shot in the aortic valve here.” She argued the judge reasonably exercised discretion in excluding part of Francois’s statement because admitting an incomplete excerpt could mislead the jury about whether Francois had actually fired a gun during the incident.

At argument, counsel and the justices discussed evidence the prosecution introduced at trial: surveillance footage showing gunfire flashes outside a car, multiple spent casings recovered outside the vehicle (identified at argument as .40 caliber), and medical evidence establishing the fatal wound to the victim’s aorta. Defense counsel pressed the court on whether that combination of evidence, plus Francois’s unproduced statement, would have been sufficient to show self defense without Williams testifying. The commonwealth emphasized there was no physical evidence in the car tying a second gun to Francois and that the portions of the statement excluded by the trial judge included qualifiers that altered its meaning.

Baylor also pressed the justices on factual points raised at trial, including testimony and expert opinion about a jammed cartridge in a weapon recovered from the scene and whether the weapon’s safety could have been engaged or turned on by being ejected or thrown.

The justices questioned defense and prosecution on the applicable standards. Counsel debated whether the judge’s in‑court determination was an exercise of discretion and whether, on appeal, the relevant standard would be abuse of discretion or whether any error created a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Johnson pointed to Massachusetts decisions on self‑defense and retreat instructions and argued the instructions given conveyed the appropriate legal concepts about retreat and reasonable, but mistaken, belief.

The court heard argument but did not announce a decision at the hearing. The parties rested their oral presentations with references to the briefs filed in the appeal.

Ending: The justices will issue a written decision resolving whether portions of Francois’s statement should have been admitted and whether the trial judge’s instructions and handling of jury questions about retreat and self defense require reversal or further proceedings.