On October 2, 2024, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment in Hullum v. Commonwealth, addressing key issues around double jeopardy, duplicative convictions, and the retrial of lesser included offenses. Lance Hullum, the petitioner, appealed a county court’s decision denying his petition for extraordinary relief after his prior convictions were vacated and his retrial on several charges was set.
Case Background
Lance Hullum was originally indicted in 2014 on several aggravated assault charges, stemming from attacks on two victims, Raymond Girard and Richard Saunders. These charges included armed assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to maim. At trial, the jury convicted Hullum of the lesser included offense of assault rather than armed assault with intent to murder. However, Hullum was convicted of other charges, such as assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon.
Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court set aside most of Hullum’s convictions, ruling that he had not validly waived his right to counsel. The case was remanded for a new trial on the surviving charges.
Legal Issues
- Double Jeopardy: Hullum argued that retrying him for any of the remaining charges, including the lesser included offense of assault and the assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, would violate his protection against double jeopardy. He contended that because the jury acquitted him of the greater offenses, the lesser included offenses should also be dismissed.
- Duplicative Convictions: Hullum also claimed that the charges for simple assault and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon were duplicative of the greater charges (e.g., armed assault with intent to maim) and should be dismissed.
Court’s Ruling
- Double Jeopardy: The Supreme Judicial Court held that the verdicts on the lesser included offenses of assault precluded retrial on the greater offenses, such as armed assault with intent to murder. However, it affirmed that Hullum could be retried on the lesser included offenses, including simple assault and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, as they did not violate double jeopardy principles.
- Duplicative Convictions: The court found Hullum’s argument on duplicative convictions premature. He had not yet been retried or convicted again on the pending indictments. The court explained that any concerns about duplicative convictions could be addressed after the retrial, depending on the outcome.
Conclusion
The Hullum v. Commonwealth ruling clarifies how the principles of double jeopardy apply to retrials involving lesser included offenses. It also reinforces that issues of duplicative convictions should be resolved after retrial and sentencing. The court’s decision permits Hullum to be retried on charges related to his previous convictions, but ensures protection against being retried on charges for which he was already acquitted.
