Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Finds Prosecutor Erred in Asking Jurors to Infer the Defendant Carried a Knife to the Victim’s Home Because He Was a Fisherman

According to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, “[a]lthough a prosecutor may urge the jury to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, a prosecutor may not engage in speculation or surmise, or ask the jury to do so.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 189 N.E.3d 654 (2022). A good example of a prosecutor violating this principle in closing argument can be found in the recent opinion of that court in Commonwealth v. Roman, 251 N.E.3d 1183 (Mass. 2025).

In Roman,

In the evening hours of May 9, 2015, a Southbridge police officer was dispatched to conduct a well-being check at the residence of Joseph Stanick and found his dead, naked body laying face down at the top of his staircase. The defendant, David Roman, admitted to killing the victim but claimed it was in self-defense. He was later indicted for the victim’s death and ultimately convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree based on a theory of extreme atrocity or cruelty.

On appeal, Roman claimed several errors by the State, including the prosecutor asking the jury during closing argument “to infer that the defendant carried a knife with him to the victim’s home on the day of the killing because he was a ‘fisherman.'”

In response, the court cited the above language from Brown and concluded that “although there was evidence in the record that the defendant enjoyed fishing, there was nothing to support the assertion that fishermen generally carry knives. Thus, it was improper for the prosecutor to ask the jury to speculate that because the defendant liked to fish, he was likely carrying a knife at the time of the offense.”

That said, the court deemed this harmless error and upheld the conviction.

-CM