When Fear, Force, and the Fourth Collide: A Deep Dive into Commonwealth v. Malik A. Koval
In the unpublished Appeals Court decision Commonwealth v. Malik A. Koval, No. 23-P-1252 (March 11, 2025), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a set of serious convictions stemming from a police interaction that escalated into gunfire—but also reversed two key counts due to insufficient evidence. The decision, issued under Rule 23.0, may not be binding precedent, but it deserves attention for its nuanced approach to police-civilian encounters, self-defense against law enforcement, and constructive possession in firearm cases.
In this blog post, we unpack the facts, legal issues, and significance of this case, providing insights for criminal defense lawyers, civil liberties advocates, and anyone interested in the constitutional limits of state power.
Background: From Street Encounter to Shootout
On a summer day in July 2018, police in Massachusetts responded to a 911 call reporting that Malik Koval was throwing glass bottles into the street. Officers DeMiranda and Moore arrived separately. Both found Koval agitated, sweating, and talking rapidly. Koval criticized police violence against Black people. When DeMiranda identified himself as Black, Koval responded that he was "helping the police," signaling a deep mistrust of law enforcement.
Tensions escalated when Officer Moore moved behind Koval to initiate a patfrisk. Koval objected—“you can’t stand behind me like that”—and fled. Moore gave chase, briefly impeded by Koval’s mother. When Moore tackled Koval, Koval tripped him and ran into the house. DeMiranda followed and grabbed Koval in a bear hug to prevent him from reaching for what he thought might be a knife.
But Koval had retrieved a gun.
As DeMiranda restrained him, Koval fired, hitting DeMiranda twice. Moore entered the home and was grazed by a bullet. In the ensuing exchange, DeMiranda drew his own weapon and shot Koval multiple times. Koval retreated and collapsed on his front lawn.
Statements After the Shooting: A Window into Motive
While hospitalized, Koval made multiple statements to police officers:
He said he panicked when Moore stood behind him, fearing police would kill him.
He expressed no animosity toward one detective: “I wouldn’t have shot you… you’re one of the good ones.”
He said he got mad when he saw his mother pushed and "that’s when I did it… I ran into the house, grabbed the gun, and I shot them."
These statements played a crucial role in establishing premeditation and undermining any claim of self-defense.
Charges and Trial Outcome
Koval faced a twelve-count indictment. After a jury-waived trial, he was convicted of ten counts, including:
Two counts of armed assault with intent to murder (G.L. c. 265, § 18(b))
Two counts of assault and battery by discharge of a firearm (G.L. c. 265, § 15E)
Two counts of assault and battery on a police officer (G.L. c. 265, § 13D)
Three firearm/ammunition charges (G.L. c. 269, §§ 10(a), (h), and (n))
Disturbing the peace (G.L. c. 272, § 53)
On appeal, Koval challenged the denial of his motions for required findings of not guilty on the most serious charges.
Legal Standards at Play
The Appeals Court applied the familiar standard from Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (1979): whether a rational fact finder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, could find each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
1. Self-Defense: Can You Shoot the Police If You’re Afraid?
The linchpin of Koval’s appeal was his claim that he acted in self-defense—a controversial argument when the alleged assailants are uniformed police officers.
To justify deadly force in self-defense, the defendant must:
Actually believe he is in imminent danger of death or serious harm;
That belief must be objectively reasonable;
He must attempt to avoid physical combat if possible; and
He must use no more force than necessary.
The Court’s Conclusion: Not Justified
The Appeals Court concluded that at least two prongs were unmet:
No duty to shoot: Koval’s own statements showed that he acted out of anger, not fear. Telling police he was “mad” about his mother being pushed and then decided to “grab the gun” was inconsistent with fear-based self-defense.
Failure to retreat: Koval could have stayed inside, locked the door, or de-escalated. Instead, he armed himself and escalated the encounter.
The court emphasized that while Koval may have felt afraid, the use of deadly force against officers performing their lawful duties was unjustified under Massachusetts law.
2. The Castle Doctrine Argument Rejected
Koval also invoked the so-called “castle rule” (G.L. c. 278, § 8A), which allows individuals to defend themselves with deadly force against unlawful intrusions into their homes.
But the court held this statute inapplicable. Koval ran into the house to arm himself. Officers entered in “hot pursuit” after Koval assaulted Moore. Even assuming the entry was technically unlawful, there was no evidence of excessive force justifying Koval's use of deadly force.
Citing Commonwealth v. Gomes, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 332 (2003), the court reaffirmed that individuals may not resist even unlawful police entry with lethal violence absent proof of excessive or egregious police conduct.
3. Who Shot Officer Moore? Circumstantial Evidence Is Enough
Koval argued that Officer Moore’s grazing head wound could have been caused by friendly fire from Officer DeMiranda. But the court found this theory speculative.
Evidence supporting Koval’s guilt included:
Shell casings matching Koval’s weapon
Moore’s location in the house when he was hit
Koval’s proximity and conduct
The trajectory of the bullet wound
In sum, the court found the evidence sufficiently established that Koval shot both officers.
4. The Firearm and Ammunition Charges: A Partial Reversal
The court reversed two of the ten convictions—a rare but important win for the defense.
Count 8: Loaded Firearm Without a License
Under G.L. c. 269, § 10(n), the Commonwealth must prove possession of a loaded firearm outside the defendant’s residence or place of business.
Here, Koval remained on the front lawn of his single-family home. The court held that a front lawn qualifies as part of the residence. This contrasts with cases involving apartment common areas or public streets. Thus, the Commonwealth failed to prove the “outside the residence” element.
Count 9: Possession of Ammunition Without an FID Card
This charge failed because the ammunition was found upstairs in a shared house. The Commonwealth did not establish constructive possession, which requires proof that Koval had knowledge of the ammunition and intent and ability to control it.
There was no evidence tying Koval to the specific room where the ammo was found, no forensic link between the ammo and the gun, and no documentation connecting him to the space.
This echoes other appellate decisions like Commonwealth v. Santana, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 265 (2019), where mere presence in a home shared with others was insufficient to prove possession.
Mental Health Not a Defense—At Least Here
Koval’s medical records introduced evidence of potential mental health concerns. However, the court noted that:
The defense had waived criminal responsibility as an issue pretrial.
The medical evidence did not “deteriorate” the Commonwealth’s case.
The factfinder was free to disbelieve Koval’s version of events.
This underscores the importance of raising mental health defenses clearly and early, particularly in serious felony cases.
Practice Takeaways for Defense Attorneys
This case offers several lessons for defense counsel in gun and violence cases:
Self-defense against police requires more than fear—it demands evidence of imminent threat and no opportunity to retreat.
Statements matter: Post-incident remarks that show anger or revenge can defeat a self-defense claim.
Home boundaries matter: Understand what counts as "inside" the residence for gun charges.
Constructive possession is fact-specific: Ammo in a shared home needs clear evidence of control.
Mental health must be preserved as a defense at the right procedural moment.
Conclusion: A Case of Complexity, Consequence, and Constitutional Boundaries
Commonwealth v. Koval is a tragic and complex case. It speaks to the intersection of race, trauma, police mistrust, and mental health. But the court’s focus remained on legal standards, particularly the limits of self-defense, the need for clear evidence in constructive possession, and the high burden the Commonwealth must meet.
While Koval was convicted on the most serious charges, the Appeals Court's willingness to reverse two convictions shows that even in emotionally charged cases, Massachusetts appellate courts maintain a careful eye on legal sufficiency and constitutional safeguards.
For practitioners, the decision is a reminder to challenge each element of every charge and to be vigilant about evidence that may support—or undermine—key defenses.