## Facts

- Roberta E. Shaffer lived with her two children in her home; her fiancé (the victim) lived there with her.
- The victim had previously beaten Shaffer severely and had threatened to kill her and the children if she asked him to leave.
- During breakfast, an argument occurred; the victim said, “Never mind. I’ll take care of you right now,” and Shaffer threw tea at him and ran to the basement where the children were.
- The victim appeared at the top of the basement stairs and threatened, “If you don’t come up these stairs, I’ll come down and kill you and the kids.”
- Shaffer began to telephone police but hung up when the victim said he would leave; he then reappeared at the stairs.
- Shaffer retrieved and loaded a .22 caliber rifle; as the victim started down the stairs, she fired a fatal shot.
- More than five minutes passed between Shaffer’s going to the basement and the shooting.
- Shaffer was indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter; her principal defense at trial was self-defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge erred by instructing that Shaffer had a duty to retreat, if safely possible, before using deadly force, even though the confrontation occurred in her home.
2. Whether the instructions adequately explained assault, threats, and the requirement that the defendant reasonably perceive imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury before using deadly force.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the manslaughter conviction.
- The court held the self-defense instructions, read as a whole, correctly stated Massachusetts law, including the requirement of safe retreat where reasonably available.
- The court declined to adopt a categorical rule eliminating any duty to retreat when a person is attacked in the person’s own home.
- The court concluded the jury could permissibly find the danger was not imminent at the moment of the shooting or that reasonable alternatives (including continued separation or summoning police) were available.

## Legal Principles

- In Massachusetts, the use of deadly force in self-defense is conditioned on the defendant’s exhausting reasonable means of escape; the defendant must retreat as far as safely possible rather than use deadly force when safe retreat is available.
- Massachusetts (at the time of this decision) did not recognize a broad “no duty to retreat in the home” rule; being in one’s residence does not categorically remove the retreat requirement.
- A threat coupled with an apparent ability to carry it out can constitute an assault for self-defense analysis, but deadly force is justified only if the defendant reasonably believes there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury and no less drastic safe alternative exists.
- Prior abuse and threats are relevant to reasonableness but do not substitute for imminence and necessity at the time deadly force is used.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Shaffer’s manslaughter conviction, holding that Massachusetts law required retreat when safely possible before using deadly force, even in the defendant’s home, and that the jury could find the shooting was not necessary in response to an imminent, unavoidable threat.


Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508, 326 N.E.2d 880 (Mass. 1975)