Felony-Murder, Firearms, and Fairness: What the Dara Poum Case Teaches Us About Criminal Trials in Massachusetts
At our Boston area criminal defense law firm, we closely follow decisions from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) because they directly impact the rights of defendants statewide. A recent case, Commonwealth v. Dara Poum, SJC-13443 (July 9, 2025), offers valuable insights into how Massachusetts courts handle felony-murder charges, firearm licensing issues, prosecutorial conduct, and sentencing procedures.
This case provides a roadmap of what can go wrong during a high-stakes homicide trial—and how those errors are addressed on appeal. For defendants and defense attorneys alike, the Poum decision underscores the importance of aggressive trial advocacy, careful jury instruction, and post-conviction review.
Case Overview: The Charges Against Dara Poum
In Commonwealth v. Poum, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony-murder, armed home invasion, and unlawful possession of a firearm after a shooting incident in Lowell in 2014. The facts were disturbing: Poum entered a neighboring apartment in the early morning hours, herded three adults into a bathroom at gunpoint, and shot two of them—Keith and Joseph Callahan—at close range.
The Commonwealth tried the case under two theories of murder: deliberate premeditation and felony-murder. The jury acquitted Poum of premeditated murder but convicted him of felony-murder based on the predicate felony of armed home invasion. The jury also found him guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm.
On appeal, Poum challenged several aspects of his trial, including:
The jury instructions on felony-murder and mitigating circumstances;
The prosecutor’s use of emotional language and references to children in the apartment;
The sentencing process, including allegations that the judge prejudged the outcome and defense counsel failed to present mitigation;
The failure to instruct the jury on the Commonwealth’s burden to prove that Poum did not have a firearm license; and
The duplicative nature of the armed home invasion conviction.
The SJC’s ruling clarified the law on several fronts and offers key lessons for any experienced Boston criminal defense attorney.
Lesson 1: Felony-Murder Still Requires Proof of Malice—But Not Mitigation
One of the most important legal issues in Poum’s appeal concerned whether the trial judge should have instructed the jury that the Commonwealth needed to disprove mitigating circumstances like “sudden combat” for felony-murder.
Under Massachusetts law, sudden combat is a type of reasonable provocation that may reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. Poum argued that because Commonwealth v. Brown, 477 Mass. 805 (2017), requires the Commonwealth to prove actual malice in felony-murder cases, it should also have to disprove mitigation.
But the SJC disagreed. The Court held that while Brown altered the felony-murder doctrine by requiring proof of malice, it did not extend the requirement to prove the absence of mitigating factors. More importantly, the Court found that the facts of the case did not support a sudden combat instruction.
Why does this matter? Because if the jury had been given a sudden combat instruction on the felony-murder charges, they might have returned a lesser verdict. This issue shows how critical it is for a defense lawyer to preserve objections to jury instructions—and to know when the facts warrant a manslaughter instruction.
Lesson 2: Prosecutors Can Reference Children—But Must Avoid Overreach
Another significant issue raised by the defense was the prosecutor’s repeated references to the young children in the apartment. Throughout his opening and closing statements, the prosecutor described the ages of the children, referred to “Baby Joe,” and emphasized the parents’ roles.
Poum argued that these references were emotionally manipulative and improperly appealed to the jury’s sympathy.
The SJC acknowledged the prosecutor’s language but concluded that it did not create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that:
The references to the children helped distinguish among similarly named individuals;
The children’s presence was relevant to the adult victims’ behavior (i.e., trying to protect them);
The prosecutor’s comments were not inflammatory or excessive.
Still, the ruling reminds us that there’s a fine line between contextual storytelling and emotional manipulation. At trial, a skilled Boston criminal lawyer must be ready to object when a prosecutor crosses that line—and to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Lesson 3: Defendants Cannot Be Convicted for Firearm Possession Without Evidence of Licensure Status
A clear win for the defense in Commonwealth v. Poum was the SJC’s decision to vacate the unlawful firearm possession conviction. The Commonwealth had failed to prove that Poum did not have a firearm license—a required element under Massachusetts law.
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and the SJC’s application of Commonwealth v. Guardado, 493 Mass. 1 (2023), Massachusetts prosecutors now bear the burden of proving the absence of a firearms license.
In Poum’s case, the Commonwealth presented no such evidence and failed to request an appropriate jury instruction. That omission was fatal to the conviction.
For defense lawyers, this decision is a reminder: don’t overlook firearm licensing as a live issue at trial—even when the case involves more serious charges like homicide. With the current legal landscape, prosecutors must now do more than prove possession—they must prove unlicensed possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
Lesson 4: Convictions for Predicate Felonies Must Be Vacated
Another bright spot in Poum’s appeal was the SJC’s ruling that his conviction for armed home invasion must be vacated because it served as the predicate felony for his felony-murder conviction.
This is not a new rule—but it's one that’s often missed or misunderstood. Under Massachusetts law, a felony that serves as the basis for a felony-murder conviction is considered a lesser-included offense. As a result, convicting a defendant of both the predicate felony and felony-murder is duplicative.
The SJC vacated the armed home invasion conviction without further discussion. Defense attorneys should always examine whether their client has been improperly charged with duplicative offenses—and raise the issue before trial, after the verdict and on appeal.
Lesson 5: Sentencing Matters—But Judges Have Wide Discretion
The defense also challenged the sentencing process, arguing that:
The trial judge had prejudged the sentence during a sidebar before hearing mitigation;
Defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present mitigating information.
The judge had stated during sidebar that he planned to impose consecutive life sentences—before victim impact statements or mitigation were presented. The SJC was troubled by the timing but found no reversible error. The judge still conducted a full hearing and allowed both sides to be heard.
As for ineffective assistance, the SJC noted that defense counsel failed to mention that Poum had children, was a son of immigrants, grew up in poverty, and suffered from alcoholism. Still, the Court concluded that the failure was not prejudicial, because the statutory minimums already required two life sentences, and the small difference between concurrent and consecutive sentences had no real practical impact.
The takeaway? While a judge has broad discretion in sentencing, defense counsel must take every opportunity to present meaningful mitigation—even in cases with mandatory minimums. This effort helps preserve appellate arguments and demonstrates the defense's commitment to the client’s humanity.
Lesson 6: G.L. c. 278, § 33E Review Is Crucial in Murder Appeals
As with any direct appeal from a conviction of first-degree murder in Massachusetts, Poum received “plenary review” under G.L. c. 278, § 33E. This allows the SJC to consider reducing a murder conviction or granting a new trial even if no legal errors occurred.
Poum asked the Court to reduce the verdicts to manslaughter or second-degree murder. He pointed to the lack of motive, the chaotic events in the apartment, and his intoxication.
The SJC refused. It found that the convictions were not out of proportion to Poum’s culpability. The facts—including the retrieval of the gun, the corralled victims, the ballistics evidence, and the absence of credible accident evidence—supported the verdicts.
Still, the case reminds defense attorneys of the value of § 33E review. Even when traditional appellate arguments fail, the SJC may still provide relief if it finds that justice was not served. A well-written brief under § 33E can reframe the moral weight of a homicide case.
How a Boston Criminal Lawyer Can Use the Poum Case in Practice
As a Boston-area criminal defense firm, here’s how we apply the lessons of Commonwealth v. Poum to our practice:
Jury Instructions Must Be Precise: If your client is charged with felony-murder, the jury must be instructed on malice. But unless there’s a legal basis, you likely won’t get a mitigation instruction like sudden combat. Still, always ask for one if the facts allow.
Prosecutors Can’t Skip Licensing Evidence: In firearm cases, you must demand that the Commonwealth prove your client lacked a valid license. If they don’t, move to dismiss or request a directed verdict.
Avoid Duplicative Convictions: When the jury returns verdicts on both felony-murder and the predicate felony, push to have the lesser vacated.
Preserve the Record: Raise objections at trial. If you don’t, your client’s appeal will be limited to claims of “substantial likelihood of miscarriage of justice”—a much harder standard to meet.
Fight at Sentencing—Even on Mandatory Minimums: Even if a life sentence is required, present mitigation. You never know when it could affect parole eligibility or how the judge structures lesser sentences.
Use § 33E Review: In every first-degree murder appeal, don’t just argue legal error—make the moral case. The SJC is one of the only courts in the country that offers this kind of second look.
Final Thoughts: Criminal Defense Is About More Than Guilt or Innocence
The Poum case is a reminder that defending a serious case—especially one involving allegations of murder—is about more than fighting over guilt. It’s about making sure the process is fair. It’s about protecting constitutional rights. And sometimes, it’s about fighting for proportionality in sentencing or pushing back against emotionally charged rhetoric that clouds the jury’s judgment.
At our Boston criminal defense firm, we stand with our clients through every stage of the case—from investigation to trial, sentencing, and appeal. Whether you're facing firearm charges, a homicide indictment, or any serious felony, we have the courtroom experience and legal knowledge to defend your rights and protect your future.
If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Massachusetts, call us today. Let our team guide you through the storm.