Appeals Court reviews strangulation and witness-intimidation instructions in Kerrigan appeal
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Counsel for appellant Lamar Kerrigan challenged sufficiency of evidence for strangulation, disputed whether four jail phone calls constituted witness intimidation, and argued that consciousness-of-guilt instructions improperly linked separate elements; the Commonwealth defended the jury's verdict and the judge's instructions.
The Appeals Court panel heard three principal issues in Commonwealth v. Lamar Kerrigan: whether evidence supported a strangulation conviction; whether phone calls from jail while an active restraining order was pending amounted to witness intimidation; and whether the court properly instructed the jury about consciousness of guilt.
Appellant counsel Jalimhan Nokom told the panel there was no direct evidence that the complaining witness’s breathing was impaired, cited ER testimony finding no sign of strangulation, and argued jurors were free to reject in-the-moment statements as motivated by fear rather than objective breathing difficulty. Nokom also noted the complaining witness testified she was "not intimidated" and emphasized the absence of a pattern of domestic abuse that courts have found probative for intimidation findings.
On consciousness of guilt, Nokom argued the jury received dangerously overlapping guidance because physical responses (barricading a front door, hiding in a bathroom) were tied to the phone-call evidence, which risked short-circuiting the jury’s independent assessment of intimidation. Michael McGee for the Commonwealth responded that the combined facts—alleged choking, three instances of force, direct "I can't breathe" statements, and repeated coaching phone calls—were reasonable bases for jurors to find the elements met and that the judge's instructions fell within discretion.
The panel took the matter as submitted after argument.