Commonwealth v. Travis Phillips: A Deep Dive into a Landmark Massachusetts Murder Case
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s (SJC) recent decision in Commonwealth v. Travis Phillips (SJC-13350) is a significant ruling in homicide and firearms law. The case involved a brutal shooting in Boston on July 4, 2018, which was extensively captured on video surveillance. Phillips was convicted of first-degree murder on theories of deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity or cruelty, as well as unlawful possession of a firearm. On appeal, the SJC upheld the murder conviction but vacated the firearm conviction, ruling that the Commonwealth failed to prove Phillips did not have a valid firearm license, a requirement clarified after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).
This blog post will analyze the key legal issues, the court’s reasoning, and the broader implications for criminal defense, prosecutorial conduct, and constitutional law.
Background: The Facts of the Case
The case arose from the fatal shooting of Deondra Lee in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston. The entire sequence of events was captured on video, providing compelling evidence for the Commonwealth.
On July 4, 2018, Lee and his wife were seated on a street corner watching fireworks.
A gray Volkswagen Passat—registered to a woman named Raquel Lamons—drove past them twice. Lamons’ boyfriend, Michael Carleton, was driving, and a passenger in the front seat fired multiple shots, striking Lee in the head, foot, and leg.
The passenger’s face was not visible in the video, but he was seen wearing a white T-shirt with a yellow marking on the chest.
After the shooting, the Volkswagen drove directly to a parking lot near an apartment building at 626 Dudley Street, where the shooter exited and walked into the building.
The apartment belonged to Phillips' mother, and forensic evidence tied Phillips to the Volkswagen and the crime:
His DNA was found on a water bottle in the car’s center console.
His fingerprints were on the passenger-side door handle.
The building superintendent had seen Phillips frequently at 626 Dudley Street and riding in the Volkswagen.
Despite this extensive circumstantial evidence, Phillips denied being the shooter, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key Legal Issues on Appeal
Phillips raised multiple legal challenges on appeal, including:
Sufficiency of the evidence—arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove he was the shooter.
Prosecutorial misconduct—claiming the prosecutor’s statements during opening and closing arguments were improper.
Fourth Amendment challenge—challenging the search of his mother’s apartment.
Jury instruction error—asserting that the jury instructions on extreme atrocity or cruelty were incorrect.
Firearms conviction—arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove he lacked a license, a requirement established post-Bruen.
The SJC rejected most of these claims but vacated his firearm conviction, remanding that charge for a new trial.
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence: Was Phillips the Shooter?
Phillips’ primary argument was that the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter. Because the gunman’s face was never captured on video, the identification relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.
However, the SJC found the evidence overwhelmingly sufficient to support the conviction. The court emphasized:
Video footage showed the shooter immediately went to 626 Dudley Street after the murder, where Phillips’ mother lived.
Phillips’ fingerprints were found on the Volkswagen’s door handle, precisely where the shooter had placed his hand when exiting the vehicle.
His DNA was found on a water bottle in the center console, indicating he had recently been in the car.
Surveillance footage matched Phillips' build and clothing to the shooter’s appearance.
The court noted that circumstantial evidence alone can support a conviction and ruled that a rational jury could conclude that Phillips was the gunman.
2. Prosecutorial Misconduct: Did the Prosecutor Go Too Far?
Phillips argued that the prosecutor improperly inflamed the jury’s emotions, misstated the evidence, and reduced the Commonwealth’s burden of proof. He cited several problematic statements:
Describing the shooting as a “monstrous crime” and calling Phillips and Carleton a “kill team.”
Comparing Phillips and Carleton to sharks circling their victim.
Drawing a contrast between the victim’s “loving marriage” and the defendants’ “evil partnership.”
The SJC found only one statement problematic—the "evil partnership" remark—but ruled that it did not rise to the level of reversible error. The court held that while prosecutors must avoid emotional rhetoric, enthusiastic advocacy is permitted, especially in extreme atrocity or cruelty cases.
3. Fourth Amendment Challenge: Was the Search of Phillips’ Mother’s Apartment Lawful?
Phillips challenged the search warrant for his mother’s apartment, arguing that:
The warrant lacked probable cause to believe evidence would be found there.
The building was a multi-unit dwelling, and there was no direct evidence the shooter entered his mother’s specific apartment.
The SJC rejected this argument, finding that:
The shooter was seen entering 626 Dudley Street immediately after the shooting.
Phillips had been observed frequently staying at his mother’s apartment.
The police had a reasonable basis to believe evidence—such as clothing or the murder weapon—could be inside.
Thus, the court ruled the search complied with the Fourth Amendment.
4. Jury Instruction on Extreme Atrocity or Cruelty: A Harmless Error
At trial, the judge gave an outdated jury instruction on extreme atrocity or cruelty, failing to follow the updated standard in Commonwealth v. Castillo (2020).
Phillips argued that this error deprived him of a fair trial, but the SJC disagreed. The court ruled that since the jury also convicted Phillips on a theory of deliberate premeditation, any error in the extreme atrocity or cruelty instruction was harmless.
5. Firearm Conviction Vacated: The Impact of Bruen
The most consequential part of the ruling was the vacatur of Phillips’ firearm conviction.
At the time of his trial, Massachusetts law placed the burden on the defendant to prove that he had a valid firearm license.
However, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen (2022), the SJC held in Commonwealth v. Guardado (2023) that the burden is now on the prosecution to prove lack of a license.
Because Phillips’ case was still pending on appeal, he was entitled to retroactive benefit of the new rule.
Since the Commonwealth failed to introduce evidence proving Phillips lacked a firearm license, the SJC vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Broader Implications of the Decision
1. The Growing Importance of Video Evidence
This case underscores how surveillance footage is transforming criminal trials. The combination of pole cameras, MBTA bus footage, and security cameras provided an indisputable timeline of events, making it difficult for the defense to argue mistaken identity.
2. Bruen’s Continued Impact on Firearms Prosecutions
The vacatur of Phillips’ firearm conviction is another example of how Bruen has upended state gun laws. Going forward, Massachusetts prosecutors must affirmatively prove lack of a firearm license, creating a new hurdle in gun possession cases.
3. Limits on Prosecutorial Rhetoric
While the court upheld most of the prosecutor’s statements, it cautioned against overly emotional or prejudicial rhetoric. Prosecutors should carefully balance strong advocacy with fair argument to avoid potential appellate issues.
Conclusion
The SJC’s decision in Commonwealth v. Travis Phillips reinforces several key principles in criminal law—the strength of circumstantial evidence, the limits of prosecutorial rhetoric, and the constitutional protections against improper searches and unlawful firearm convictions. While Phillips’ murder conviction stands, the vacatur of his firearm charge highlights the evolving landscape of gun laws post-Bruen.
This case serves as a cautionary tale for both prosecutors and defense attorneys navigating the complex intersections of video evidence, forensic science, and constitutional rights in modern criminal trials.