Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Recognizes Doctrine of Transferred Intent Self-Defense
Courts across the country recognize the doctrine of transferred intent. For example, imagine that Dana shoots at Victoria with the intent to kill her, but the bullet goes astray, striking and killing Tracy, a third party. Transferred intent says that Dana’s intent to kill Victoria transfers to Tracy, allowing Dana to be found guilty of murdering her. But what if Dana shot at Victoria because Victoria was lunging at her with a knife, with the bullet going astray, striking and killing Tracy? Should transferred intent apply, meaning that, if Dana could claim self-defense had she shot Victoria, that claim of self-defense transfers to her killing of Tracy? And what if Dana recklessly shot Tracy while defending herself against Victoria? These were the questions of first impression addressed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in its recent opinion in Commonwealth v. Santana-Rodriguez, 267 N.E.3d 563 (Mass. 2025).
The Commonwealth charged the defendant, Kenneth Jose Santana-Rodriguez, with murder in the first degree for causing the death of Trung Tran. Tran was an innocent bystander tragically killed when the defendant, involved in an altercation with another person, fired two gunshots at his opponent. After the shooting, the defendant informed police that the other person, Irving Sanchez, started an argument, displayed a firearm in his waistband, and threatened, “You know what’s about to happen.” According to the defendant, he responded to the threat of deadly force by drawing a pistol and twice firing at Sanchez. One gunshot struck Tran, who was nearby, in the chest.
The defendant filed an interlocutory appeal, asking the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to recognize a transferred intent doctrine of self-defense. In response, the court noted that “[a]bout one-half of the States have enacted statutes shielding an individual exercising lawful self-defense from criminal liability for the death of an unintended victim.”
The court decided to join these jurisdictions, ruling that, “[o]n appropriate facts, a defendant may assert a claim of transferred intent self-defense to justify the death of an unintended victim, such as an innocent bystander, killed during the lawful exercise of self-defense against an assailant.”
On the other hand, the State argued that a defendant’s recklessness in defending himself, resulting in an innocent bystander dying should result in an involuntary manslaughter conviction. The court again agreed, concluding that “[a] murder defendant may be held criminally liable for the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter if the Commonwealth proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant’s exercise of self-defense was wanton or reckless so as to create a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm would result to an unintended victim.”