The court heard a contested issue of shared intent in a homicide appeal centered on whether a defendant who drove a vehicle that was used in a shooting can be convicted of second‑degree murder or whether the facts better support a lesser charge.

Appellant counsel Suzanne Renault urged the panel to treat the case like decisions that limit attributing lethal intent to drivers who did not see or know the shooters’ plan, saying the record is sparse and much of the government’s theory relies on inference (text messages, limited phone links and post‑event movements). She pointed to factual differences from recent SJC guidance and argued the evidence pushed any liability toward accessory‑after‑the‑fact rather than shared lethal intent.

For the Commonwealth, counsel argued a line of appellate cases (including Watson and recent slip opinions discussed at argument) supports imputing knowledge when the driver remains present, the vehicle shows evidence tying it to the shooting (shell casings in the car), and the driver’s conduct — idling, braking and remaining at the bottom of a U‑shaped street — makes facilitation a reasonable inference. The prosecutor noted ballistic and video evidence and urged the court to view the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict.

The justices pressed both sides on finer points of precedent (Carlton, Sanders, Baxter, Baez, Watson and Gonzales were cited at argument), evidentiary authentication of phone records and exhibit stickers, and whether an evidentiary hearing would be required to resolve disputed inferences.