Supreme Judicial Court hears dispute over larceny instruction in felony-murder case

The Supreme Judicial Court heard oral argument in SJC-13482, Commonwealth v. Kaiden J. Henderson, on whether a trial judge should have instructed the jury on the lesser included offense of larceny from a person, a change defense counsel said could have undercut Henderson’s felony-murder conviction.

Dana Curhan, attorney for Kaiden Henderson, told the justices that after co-defendant David Trongeau stabbed the victim, Henderson “grabbed two bags that did not belong to him,” and urged the court to treat the taking as possibly an opportunistic larceny occurring after the fatal attack rather than an armed robbery. "Had the jury been properly instructed, they could have acquitted him," Curhan said, arguing that the absence of a larceny instruction likely prejudiced the defendant and warranted at least a new trial.

The defense emphasized gaps and ambiguities in the evidentiary record. Curhan noted the compilation video shows a clip on Henderson’s outer pocket but that she “can't identify that as cash” or “identify a knife either going in or coming out,” and she pointed to statements by Trongeau—two recorded statements in which he said, “I stabbed him”—that did not mention a robbery or implicate Henderson.

Marina Moriarty, arguing for the Commonwealth, urged the court there was “no rational basis” to give a larceny-from-a-person instruction because Henderson’s testimony was that he mistakenly took what he believed to be his own bag. Moriarty cited Donlan, 436 Mass. at 337, and told the court that a judge is not required to reconstruct every factual scenario when an instruction would “distort the testimony.” "It is very clear" in the Commonwealth's view that the video shows Henderson had nothing in his hands entering the building and that a clip visible in his pocket could reasonably be inferred by a jury to be a knife.

The justices probed both sides on several factual points bearing on the legal question, including whether there was evidence of a planned robbery (parking around the corner, masked faces and a coordinated approach), what was actually in the bags (testimony described marijuana and money), and the medical examiner's testimony about the wounds. The transcript records that the medical examiner described 17 stab wounds and testified that some wounds were consistent with different instrument characteristics—a basis the Commonwealth said could support an inference that multiple instruments were used.

Counsel also discussed the financial evidence: testimony referenced about $2,700 in a locked safe and an asserted $30,000 elsewhere in the house that was not recovered, and witnesses at a hotel described waiting customers and cash on hand. The Commonwealth argued those facts support a robbery motive and that jurors could reasonably infer Henderson participated in the robbery plan; the defense countered that the absence of recovered cash and other details are consistent with a postfactum taking or an opportunistic grabbing of property.

Moriarty highlighted that the jury returned differing verdicts for co-defendants—finding Devaughn Johnson not guilty of accessory to the fact after murder but guilty of accessory after the fact to armed robbery—and reminded the court that Trongeau died in jail before trial. She told the court she would rely on her written brief if the court had no further questions.

The court’s questioning focused on whether, under the legal standards this court reviews, the absence of a larceny instruction produced substantial likelihood of prejudice given the jury's role and the evidence presented. The argument concluded with counsel’s reliance on briefs and the court thanking counsel.