Instruction 1.300, Criminal Model Jury Instructions for Use in the District Court

MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS;

EVIDENCE ADMITTED AGAINST ONE DEFENDANT ONLY

I. MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

There is more than one defendant on trial in this case. Each

defendant is entitled to have you determine his (or her) guilt separately and

individually. The fact that the defendants are on trial together is not

evidence that there is any connection between them, and is not any

evidence of their guilt. The Commonwealth has the burden of proving

beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of each defendant separately.

When you consider the evidence, it is your duty to examine it carefully

as to the charge(s) against each defendant separately, as if he (or she)

were on trial alone. You may consider only the evidence that applies to

that defendant, and you are not to consider any evidence that I have told

you was admitted into evidence only against another defendant. Each

defendant is entitled to have his (or her) case determined solely from the

evidence about his (or her) own acts and statements.

Commonwealth v. Crowe, 21 Mass. App. Ct. 456, 485, 488 N.E.2d 780, 797-798 (1986).

II. EVIDENCE ADMITTED AGAINST ONE DEFENDANT ONLY

During this trial I have told you that some of the evidence was limited

to one defendant. Let me emphasize that you may consider such evidence

only in your deliberations about that defendant concerning whom it was

admitted in evidence. You must not consider it in any way in your

deliberations concerning (the other) (any other) defendant.

Commonwealth v. Snyder, 282 Mass. 401, 416, 185 N.E. 376, 381 (1933), aff'd, 291 U.S. 97, 54 S.Ct.

330 (1934).

SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION

Where one defendant’s statement is admitted only against that defendant. You

have heard testimony about a statement that [one codefendant] is

alleged to have made. If you accept that testimony, you may

consider the statement only in determining the (guilt or

innocence) (credibility) of [that codefendant] . It is not evidence

against ( [other codefendant] ) (any other codefendant), and you are

not to consider it in any way when you consider the evidence

against him (her) (them). Each defendant is entitled to have his

(or her) case determined solely from the evidence about his (or

her) own acts and statements.

Commonwealth v. Carita, 356 Mass. 132, 137-139, 249 N.E.2d 5, 8-9 (1969);

Commonwealth v. Valcourt, 333 Mass. 706, 713, 133 N.E.2d 217, 222 (1956);

Snyder, supra.

Note that a limiting instruction is insufficient, and severance is required, where the

Commonwealth seeks to introduce the extrajudicial statement of one codefendant

who does not testify at trial and which "powerfully incriminat[es]" another

codefendant against whom it is not admissible. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S.

123, 135-136, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 1627-1628 (1968), made applicable to the states by

Roberts v. Russell, 392 U.S. 293, 88 S.Ct. 192l (1968). See Jury Trial Manual for

Criminal Offenses Tried in the District Court § 1.14.