Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Massachusetts v. Hinds

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
927 N.E.2d 1009 (2010)


Facts

John Hinds (defendant), who lived with his aging mother in the mother’s house, had an ongoing dispute with siblings Patricia Melo and Warren Beranger. Hinds denied the siblings access to the house, and Warren, who held the mother’s power of attorney, threatened to sell the house and kill Hinds. Hinds obtained a temporary order of protection that was dismissed after hearing 13 days later. On the day the order of protection was dismissed, Patricia, Warren, and Warren’s wife Mary arrived at the mother’s house. Patricia forcibly pushed past Hinds and entered the house, while Warren and Mary waited at the corner outside. Because Patricia was yelling and cursing at the mother and threatening to put the mother in a nursing home, Hinds shot Patricia in the head. As Patricia lay on the floor, Hinds exited the house, walked to the corner, and yelled at Warren and Mary to leave Hinds and the mother alone. As Mary placed both hands on a pocketbook, Hinds shot Mary in the head. When Warren pushed back his coat, Hinds shot Warren in the head and back. Hinds claimed that the shooting occurred in self-defense, because Hinds thought that Warren and Mary were reaching for weapons. Hinds was charged with the murders of Warren and Mary. At the close of the evidence, Hinds requested a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter. The court refused the request. The jury convicted Hinds of first-degree murder of Warren and second-degree murder of Mary. On appeal, Hinds argued that the trial judge erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter on the ground that Hinds was provoked into killing and acted in self-defense.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Gants, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.