Mass. Supreme Judicial Court hears appeal over involuntary-manslaughter instruction in James Ferguson case

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in Commonwealth v. James Ferguson (Rocket No. SJC13574), where defense counsel Michael Temposki asked the court to order a new trial or to hold that Ferguson was entitled to an involuntary-manslaughter instruction. "I'm asking the court to order a new trial for Mr. Ferguson," Temposki said, arguing the jury could reasonably have concluded that the fatal injury was a severed artery to the arm sustained when the victim fled through a window.

Temposki told the court there were two principal theories that could support a lesser-included manslaughter instruction: either Ferguson was inside the house and the fatal arm wound occurred during a nonweaponized struggle or while fleeing, or Ferguson was not inside and the wound occurred when the victim went through the window. He emphasized record ambiguities—three sets of shoeprints, shoe impressions that did not match Ferguson's shoes, and items tied to Ferguson found outside the house—and argued those facts permitted a non-speculative inference that the arm injury could have been the but-for cause of death.

Several justices pressed Temposki on where permissible inference ends and impermissible speculation begins. Temposki relied on the medical examiner's testimony, summarized at argument as indicating both the head wounds and the arm injury could have contributed to death, with the arm laceration capable of causing death within minutes. "I think the jury would be free to reach that conclusion," he said, arguing that—in the light most favorable to the defendant—the evidence supported the manslaughter theory.

Assistant District Attorney Arna Hansen, representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office, urged the court to affirm the conviction. "I ask that you uphold the defendant's conviction for murder," Hansen said, arguing there was substantial evidence of malice and that the felony-murder doctrine also applied given the robbery context. Hansen pointed to physical evidence at the scene—"He was wearing a blue shirt that originally belonged to Moscotolo that was saturated in the victim's blood. His DNA was retrieved from the collar of that shirt as well as the armpits"—and to phone records and behavior that, she said, tied Ferguson to planning and continued participation in the robbery.

Bench questioning explored competing sequences (beaten with a frying pan then through the window; pushed then cut in the window; or the window injury occurring first), and whether, given those uncertainties, a trial judge could, consistent with law, give a lesser-included instruction. The justices also probed whether the defense had adequately preserved the window theory at the charge conference and whether the record contained the charge-conference argument Temposki relied on.

Both sides cited precedent during argument: defense counsel distinguished O'Brien, emphasizing differences in record development; the Commonwealth invoked Eagles and Catalina to explain felony-battery and felony-murder principles. Argument concluded after additional questioning; the court did not announce a decision at the end of argument.