Self-Defense, Family Conflict, and Evidence of Violence: What Commonwealth v. Andrade Teaches Us About the Limits of Legal Justification
In a recent decision with deep implications for self-defense claims in criminal trials, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed whether a defendant can use evidence of a victim’s later violent act to prove that the victim was the aggressor during an earlier incident. The case, Commonwealth v. Weber Andrade, centers around a tragic family conflict, a stabbing at a backyard barbecue, and a complicated legal question: When and how should a jury hear about a victim’s violent behavior—especially if that behavior happened after the crime?
The answer, as the SJC made clear, is not simple. In this post, we’ll walk through the facts of the case, the legal questions raised, and what the court’s ruling means for future criminal cases in Massachusetts.
A Barbecue Turns Violent
On May 5, 2018, a family barbecue in Essex County ended in violence. The host—referred to in court as “the victim”—had invited his son, Weber Andrade, and Andrade’s wife, Luila, to join the gathering. Sometime after 1 a.m., a group of late-arriving guests showed up. The victim’s wife, Hope, asked Luila to tell them to leave. This request sparked a confrontation between the victim and Luila, which escalated when Andrade intervened.
Surveillance footage showed the victim on an elevated porch, yelling at Luila, who was off-camera. Andrade came up the stairs, and the two men began pushing each other. The footage confirmed that the victim pushed Andrade first and threatened him: “Stop, I’m going to hurt you.”
What happened next was contested. The victim said that Andrade stabbed him without warning in the chest, while Andrade’s wife testified that the victim aggressively confronted and pushed Andrade in the yard. Andrade later told police he felt the need to protect his wife, saying, “Stop. I’m a man. It’s my wife. I have to protect my wife.”
Andrade fled the scene but was arrested nearby a few hours later. He was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (a knife).
Trial and Conviction
At trial, Andrade claimed self-defense. His legal team argued that he acted in response to a credible threat from his father. To support this claim, they wanted to introduce a piece of evidence: a physical assault the victim committed against his wife, Hope, eighteen months after the barbecue. Specifically, the victim had shoved Hope so forcefully she nearly fell over.
The defense believed this later act of violence could help the jury understand that the victim had a violent streak, supporting the idea that he had been the initial aggressor in the earlier encounter with Andrade. But the trial judge wouldn’t allow the evidence to be heard by the jury, reasoning that it happened after the stabbing and thus wasn’t relevant.
Andrade was convicted and sentenced to 2½ to 4 years in prison. He appealed.
The Legal Question: What Counts as Relevant Violence?
The appeal focused on a doctrine created by the SJC in a 2005 case called Commonwealth v. Adjutant. In Adjutant, the court ruled that when there is a genuine dispute about who started a violent confrontation, a defendant claiming self-defense may present evidence that the victim had a history of violence—even if the defendant wasn’t aware of that history at the time.
This exception to the usual rules of evidence (which typically forbid what’s called “propensity” evidence—i.e., showing someone acted a certain way in the past so they probably acted that way again) was designed to give juries a fuller picture of what really happened.
But what about later acts of violence by the victim? Could a victim’s future behavior shed light on their past tendencies? That was the key question in Andrade.
The Court’s Holding: Yes in Theory, No in This Case
The Supreme Judicial Court held that judges can, in their discretion, allow evidence of a victim’s violent behavior even if it occurred after the charged crime—but only if it helps the jury decide who was the first aggressor. In other words, the Adjutant rule applies not just to past acts of violence, but also to future ones—provided they are relevant.
This was a big clarification. Lower courts had not clearly agreed on whether Adjutant allowed for “subsequent act” evidence. The SJC said yes, such evidence might be admissible under the right circumstances. The key, however, is whether it truly helps the jury figure out who started the fight.
And in Andrade’s case, that wasn’t really a mystery.
Why the Evidence Didn’t Help Andrade
The court ultimately upheld Andrade’s conviction. Why?
Because both sides agreed that the victim pushed Andrade first. So the question of who was the “first aggressor” wasn’t in doubt. The real question was whether Andrade was justified in responding to that push with a potentially deadly knife stab.
Andrade’s lawyers argued that the victim’s later act of violence—pushing Hope—showed a general pattern of aggression that might make his earlier behavior seem more threatening. But the court rejected that logic. It said that unless there is a real dispute about who escalated the confrontation to deadly violence, Adjutant evidence doesn’t apply. And here, the stabbing was not in response to any lethal threat—just a pushing match.
In short, the court said: even if the later shove showed the victim was aggressive, it didn’t make it more reasonable for Andrade to have used deadly force.
The “Defense of Another” Argument
The defense also argued that the judge should have instructed the jury on “defense of another”—meaning Andrade was acting not to protect himself, but to protect his wife from the victim’s aggression.
The SJC was not persuaded. The court noted that Andrade’s trial attorney had explicitly said he wasn’t pursuing a defense-of-another theory. And the evidence at trial didn’t support it: there was no indication that the victim posed an imminent threat of death or serious harm to Luila. For a defense-of-another claim to apply, the defendant has to reasonably believe that the third person is in immediate danger—and that deadly force is the only option. That just didn’t fit the facts.
The Takeaway: Context Matters
The Andrade decision reinforces a critical lesson about self-defense law: context is everything. In Massachusetts, you have the right to defend yourself—but that right is limited. You can’t escalate a non-lethal threat into a deadly one unless you reasonably believe that your life (or someone else’s) is in serious, immediate danger.
It also shows that even powerful evidence about a victim’s violent tendencies may not matter unless the jury is genuinely unsure who started the fight or who escalated it. A person’s past (or even future) behavior might be relevant—but only if it sheds light on what really happened in the moment that matters.
Why This Case Matters for Criminal Defense Lawyers
For criminal defense attorneys, Andrade offers both an opportunity and a warning.
On the one hand, it opens the door to creative uses of evidence that were previously off-limits. Under Andrade, defense counsel may now argue for the admission of a victim’s later violent acts when trying to prove that the victim has a pattern of aggression. This could be especially valuable in cases where there are no neutral witnesses and the only question is credibility.
On the other hand, the court also reaffirmed that this kind of evidence won’t be admitted automatically. Judges still have to determine whether the evidence is relevant to the question of who initiated the violence. If the case isn’t about who started the fight—but instead about whether the defendant overreacted—then even powerful evidence of a victim’s violence may be excluded.
The key for lawyers will be showing not just that a victim has a history of aggression, but that this history matters to the specific dispute at trial.
Final Thoughts: Legal Limits in Family Conflict
Commonwealth v. Andrade involved a violent altercation between family members that ended in a stabbing. The defendant said he was trying to protect his wife, but the law requires more than good intentions—it requires a reasonable belief that using deadly force was necessary. That standard wasn’t met in this case.
The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision emphasizes that the right to self-defense or defense of another has clear legal limits. Even in emotionally charged situations, the use of deadly force must be justified by the facts and circumstances.
This case serves as a reminder that in criminal law, the question isn’t just what happened—it’s whether the law allows the response that followed. Intent may explain someone’s actions, but only legal justification can excuse them.