Is it still self-defense if you kill a bystander by mistake?

BOSTON (CN) — A man believed that a romantic rival was about to shoot him as he was getting a pedicure, so he shot first — but he accidentally killed a salon employee instead. On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Court tried to figure out the proper punishment.

Kenneth Santana-Rodriguez claims that he isn’t guilty of anything since he acted in self-defense, or at most he should be tried for involuntary manslaughter. But the state wants to charge him with second-degree murder.

A trial judge wasn’t sure what to do and asked the high court to decide, and the justices seemed to think that the state was going too far.

“Hindsight’s great, but when you’re attacked, you don’t have the luxury of hindsight,” said Justice Frank Gaziano. “You’re acting on instinct.”

It all started innocently enough when Santana-Rodriguez and Sacha Santiago went for pedicures at a nail salon at a mall in Holyoke, Massachusetts, in January 2023. According to Santana-Rodriguez, Santiago was his girlfriend and the couple were approached by a man named Irving Sanchez who argued with him, slapped him and then displayed a gun and said, “You know what’s about to happen.”

Santana-Rodriguez fired first, but he accidentally killed a male salon worker. Sanchez ran from the scene.

Santiago told a different story, however. She claimed that she was actually Sanchez’s girlfriend and had a child with him, and that she had tried to reassure the jealous Sanchez that she and Santana-Rodriguez were just friends.

Ordinarily, killing someone in self-defense is legally justified. The question is whether that’s still true if you end up killing an innocent bystander rather than the person who’s threatening you.

Some 38 states allow defendants to still plead self-defense in this situation, although a great many of them suggest that they can still be tried for something if their self-defending actions were negligent or reckless. The Massachusetts courts have never ruled on the issue.

The defense attorney, Daniel Hagan, cited a Pennsylvania case to back his argument that self-defense should lead to acquittal no matter how recklessly someone acts when defending themselves. But Justice Scott Kafker didn’t like that position.

“We’re not Steelers fans,” he commented.

Hagan then argued that recklessness should at most amount to involuntary manslaughter, not murder, and the justices seemed happy with that.

“Have any states adopted second-degree murder?” Kafker pressed the assistant district attorney, Travis Lynch.

“I’m not exactly sure if that’s what the other states have done,” Lynch replied, an answer that didn’t seem to please the court.

Lynch argued that people who are attacked still have to be “prudent” in defending themselves, and that any negligence or recklessness could amount to murder if a bystander gets killed. “This position is meant to protect innocent bystanders,” he said, arguing that otherwise people might be incentivized to spray bullets everywhere or defend themselves with a hand grenade.

Justice Gabrielle Wolohojian asked Lynch if it could be negligence if someone defended themselves with a gun even though they didn’t have any formal gun training. Lynch replied yes, much to Wolohojian’s surprise.

“We’ve never had” such a requirement, she objected.

“That’s new,” Lynch admitted.

Gaziano wasn’t buying it. “It’s apples and oranges,” he said. “You have a right to deadly force, so it’s not like shooting into an occupied building. It’s an otherwise lawful act. I just don’t think it lines up.”

“Analytically it doesn’t really follow,” added Justice Dalila Wendlandt. “The government is switching horses. It doesn’t work, the logic. Maybe that’s why other jurisdictions haven’t adopted the government’s theory.”

Hagan, the defense lawyer, ended his argument with two minutes left on the clock, which rarely happens unless an attorney feels that the case is going well.