In October of 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court issued an important decision on the subject of “joint venture liability” for firearms possession in Massachusetts. Although the underlying laws regarding this decision are nothing new, they may be surprising to numerous defendants. The general idea is that you do not necessarily need to “own” a firearm to face charges for possession. Instead, you only need to participate in a crime that involved that firearm. To learn more about this subject, consider speaking with a criminal defense attorney in Boston.
The Background of the Case
This case stems from an incident involving two shootings after a party in a Lawrence apartment. When a fight broke out at the party, the defendant and another individual left in the defendant’s vehicle. They then returned to the party, at which point the other individual fired a single shot through the front door of the apartment. The shooter then returned to the defendant’s vehicle. 15 minutes passed, and an individual emerged from the apartment and approached a van. The defendant and the other individual then drove up to the van and shot at it. Police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant, but the firearm and the other individual were not present.
The Importance of a License in “Constructive Possession” Cases
After being convicted of possessing a firearm without a license (among other things), the defendant argued that the judge failed to instruct the jury properly. Specifically, the defendant argued that the judge should have instructed the jury that for a conviction, the prosecutors must show that the defendant lacked a firearms license.
The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, noting that the judge should have instructed the jury in this way. The court also noted that this represented a substantial miscarriage of justice. The normal course of this action would be a new trial, but the defendant also argued that under the principle of double jeopardy, he should not face a new trial. The Commonwealth essentially agreed with this argument.
The Commonwealth then goes on to argue that “in any event,” the defendant’s constructive possession can be affirmed by sufficient evidence. The only real requirement in this scenario is to establish that the defendant knew about the firearm and intended to exert control over it. The Commonwealth argues that the defendant exhibited this control and knowledge when he drove the shooter around during two separate shootings.
In the end, the court affirmed some of the defendant’s convictions while reversing the charges related to firearms possession. Perhaps the most notable detail of this case is the fact that no firearm was ever recovered at the scene. This shows that possession charges are possible with no recovered firearm.
Can a Criminal Defense Attorney in Boston Help Me?
A criminal defense attorney in Boston may be able to help if you face firearm possession charges. This recent decision shows that you may face these charges even if it is not “your” gun. As long as you participate in a crime involving a firearm, you may face possession charges. This is true even if the “true owner” admits that the firearm belongs to them. Continue this discussion with Edward R. Molari.